Armed America
Armed America has some interesting pictures. ;)
Hey
Wheres wolf?
umm....i mean, she hasnt been on lately? or am I just visiting the wrong threads?>
She's been taking care of her mom for several months now, and I think that's taking a lot of her attention.
Hey
Wheres wolf?
I dont see Wolf, but there's Maggie in the second picture...
Wow. Is that a coincidence, Bruce, or were you just wanting to surprise us?
Great site, well done and great stories. I identify with many of them. I may write em'. I don't see any disabled represented.
I dont see Wolf, but there's Maggie in the second picture...
I thought that was Maggie, which then made me think of Wolf and I hadnt seen her post in a while.
Great site, well done and great stories. I identify with many of them. I may write em'. I don't see any disabled represented.
There was an older guy with no vocal chords who felt that he couldn't physically defend himself and couldn't shout for help -not wheelchair-bound, I know, but still someone who armed himself because of his physical disability.
I have always been armed, has nothing to do with my disability.
I see your point and went back and saw him. You are right. I was talking about being in a chair.
Didn't mean to imply anything about your decision to be armed, sorry --more that this guy considers himself disabled to some extent even though he's not in a chair.
I actually carry a tazer because of it. I don't conceal carry any more, my wife has gotten weird about it since my son hit three.
I did not think you implied anything.
Since my son turned 5, I think I should start carrying a tazer! :eek: :lol:
Dang.
Not having any experience with guns and being on the wrong side of the pond i found those pictures disturbing,but hey what do i know.
Hello, all. Still around, have hit a rough patch with my mom, lots of extra doctor visits lately, as there are now some blood sugar fluctuations and now wound healing problems. Riding herd on her is a full time job in addition to my regular, paid gig.
This looks like a very cool project, unfortunately, my home isn't sufficiently presentable to participate right now.
unfortunately, my home isn't sufficiently presentable to participate right now.
Go Outdoors! :)
Sorry to hear it's rough with your mom, right now. Kudos for hanging in there.
Hello, all. Still around, have hit a rough patch with my mom, lots of extra doctor visits lately, as there are now some blood sugar fluctuations and now wound healing problems. Riding herd on her is a full time job in addition to my regular, paid gig.
I'm sorry to hear that. Keep your chin up lady.
Wow. Is that a coincidence, Bruce, or were you just wanting to surprise us?
Yes.:angel:
Not having any experience with guns and being on the wrong side of the pond i found those pictures disturbing,but hey what do i know.
Well, I'm right there on the other side of the pond with ya, sharing the opinion. Maybe it's an American thing? ;)
"Dan: I consider the ownership of arms not only a right, but the duty of a free people to themselves and future generations."
Does he expect an invasion of the Bodysnatchers?
When I hold you,
in my arms,
and I feel my finger on your trigger,
I know nobody can do me no harm,
because happiness is a warm gun.
Well, I'm right there on the other side of the pond with ya, sharing the opinion. Maybe it's an American thing? ;)
I'm on this side of the pond, and I share your opinion. :earth:
When I hold you,
in my arms,
and I feel my finger on your trigger,
I know nobody can do me no harm,
because happiness is a warm gun
[COLOR="Silver"]But why did I find that slightly erotic?[/COLOR]:eek:
Good to see that the first chakra is alive and well.
While I admire and even envy that gent's collection of firearms, I have to wonder why he's got a pile of small pizza place boxes stacked in the corner.
While I admire and even envy that gent's collection of firearms, I have to wonder why he's got a pile of small pizza place boxes stacked in the corner.
That's where he keeps his collection of teeth that he has ripped from his victim's heads?
While I admire and even envy that gent's collection of firearms, I have to wonder why he's got a pile of small pizza place boxes stacked in the corner.
That pic is taken from the webcam in his bunker -he's all holed up for WW3 and he ain't coming out until the radiation clears..... or until his mom threatens to shut off his internet access
Hoplophobia so thick you can cut it with a knife...
All over six handguns (three of which appear to be .22 target pistols), two AR-16s, a bolt action rifle and a shotgun. A veritable arsenal.
Really, it's only the amount of guns you'd need for five people to hold a gun in each hand, or for one guy with ten arms.
But judging from the pizza supply, it's probaby for ten people each to have their own gun. Nothing strange about that.
Hoplophobia so thick you can cut it with a knife...
I hope you are referring at least in part to me. I put those song lyrics in there mostly for you. I'll see your "hoplophobia" label (that's a good one) and raise you a "gun nut."
Hoplophobia so thick you can cut it with a knife...
"the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user".
So you're saying he's got the Pizza because he thinks his guns may get hungry? :eyebrow:
lol...nice one Monster. Even more so because you've got the context exactly right.
My father has a fairly extensive gun collection, most of which are maintained and ready for use.
I don't think it's the fact that he's got the guns that matters so much as that he looks like a freak. That's just my opinion though.
I wonder how many of those folks have shot someone to death. Certainly not Maggie. There's not a scenario I could think of that would cause her to shoot - at least not that she'd admit to in the Cellar.:right: Cartainly are alot of guns for not killin'.
Well I've shot things to death before, but not humans. :) Rabbits, snakes, Roos and foxes, oh and feril pigs.
I also killed a toad with a brick yesterday. It sucked because its guts came out of it's mouth and splattered my leg.
Very disgusting.
Is that guy really wearing a skirt with knee-high socks? :eek:
Oh look, it's another fucking weirdo!
(Could be UG though. Looks a lot like a black kilt lol)
I wonder how many of those folks have shot someone to death. Certainly not Maggie. There's not a scenario I could think of that would cause her to shoot - at least not that she'd admit to in the Cellar.
Still lying about that? Amazing. The evidence is clear. Now go read the Justification law.
So you're saying he's got the Pizza because he thinks his guns may get hungry? :eyebrow:
No.
The hoplophobes I referred to clearly are not in any of the pictures.
Is that guy really wearing a skirt with knee-high socks? :eek:
Hey, don't be ragging on my homey's kilt and hose. And before you start, no, it's not a purse it's a sporran. :p
Oh, and the cat needed killin'.
While I admire and even envy that gent's collection of firearms, I have to wonder why he's got a pile of small pizza place boxes stacked in the corner.
Those are rounds.
I really don't get the whole gun culture. I don't know anyone who openly admits to owning a gun. I have over 200 regular customers, countless irregular customers and dozens of friends and acquaintances, and guns just don't get a mention. You can go around all day in Brisbane and you might see a cop with a sidearm if you looked for it.
Sure, we played with air rifles as kids, and my dad used to shoot rabbits in the bush as a kid, but the .22 he had was gone long before I came along.
I know it's in your Constitution, but why does that guy need ten guns?
It's scary.
I also go for days on end and never see a gun. You have the wrong impression, Hagar. That doesn't mean they're not out there, just not as visible as you seem to assume. ;)
I also go for days on end and never see a gun. You have the wrong impression, Hagar. That doesn't mean they're not out there, just not as visible as you seem to assume. ;)
You could be right. The impression I have is that gun ownership is so exalted, almost a rite of passage, and that it it really is a "right" to own a gun, necessity doesn't enter into it. I get this from the web and TV - I've never been to the USA, so it is all second hand.
I don't doubt that there are guns out there (over here), but our gun ownership laws are so different: if they're there, you don't see them. I can't ever imagine seeing a website like "Armed Australia" (sure 'nuf there probably is one).
It's not that I want to come over all "Michael Moore" at you, it is that I see the attitude toward guns as the single biggest difference between Australian and United States cultures. And, as far as differences go, its a whopper.
Michael Moore? Not at all, I commented because I see foreigners on the net seem to have a distorted picture of the US from TV, Hollywood, and the rabidness? ... rabidinity? ..... conviction, many of us show on the subject.:)
Michael Moore? Not at all, I commented because I see foreigners on the net seem to have a distorted picture of the US from TV, Hollywood, and the rabidness? ... rabidinity? ..... conviction, many of us show on the subject.:)
I find guns far more prevalent here than I expected them to be (I'm a Brit in a very liberal city in the US). I did not expect them to be on sale in Walmart. I try not to allow irrational fear into it, although most of the people I meet who are "enthusiastic" gun owners are the ones I'd least like to let near a firearm. I should probably just stop going in Walmart. When you're brought up that guns are more taboo than vibrators for men, it takes some getting used to.
My main fear is of children accidentally getting hold of them and playing with them, and frankly -having lived in Birmingham UK (which had quite a few shootings in the time I was there), I don't see any more incidents of that here -where because guns are legal, decent security cabinets are readily available and pruchased by the responsible- than I did there -where the gun owners are the irresponsible-type who would not buy a cabinet even if their gun was legit.
That said, the illegal killing with guns thing in the UK isn't any worse than it is here, in my experience, and the people who are getting killed are usually more bad guys. There might be more deaths if guns were more readily available, simply because of how crowded it is there compared to here. It's a small island with a lot of people on it. Living on a remote farm there just means you can't hear the people iin the next farm having sex. So many people in such a small space and with a completely different culture means that comparing gun law here to gun law in the UK is comparing apples and oranges.
And guns are not completely illegal in the UK, just a lot harder to get and more control on the types available. There seems to be a misconception that "gun control" means outlawing firearms altogether, and that guns are not allowed at all in the UK/Europe. Statements like "if your government allows you" just betray ignorance. If the people wanted guns, they'd have them. The UK is a democracy too. And in a smaller country, it's harder for the government to be remote from the people. Watch Prime Minister's Question time if you want to see how a people can ensure their government listens to them. Oh dear, I'm off on a tangent. But the UK don't have guns because they don't want them. It works for them, so why criticize?
I quite fancy learning to shoot targets. But I don't want to own a gun. I don't fear intruders/muggers etc. Such a fear would be irrational given where I live and where I go. Ask me again when I move elsewhere or all law and order breaks down.
...Oh, and the cat needed killin'.
I didn't notice the cat. Lucky it wasn't packing.
Oh, and the cat needed killin'.
Can't you see the poor thing's begging for mercy?
I also go for days on end and never see a gun. You have the wrong impression, Hagar. That doesn't mean they're not out there, just not as visible as you seem to assume.
Them 200 Mio must be somewhere? Maybe they only use it for gun fetishist calenders?
I quite fancy learning to shoot targets. But I don't want to own a gun.
If you have a friend who target shoots, they are usually overwhelmingly happy to take you to a range, lend you a shooty thing, and help you learn the basics.
I recommend it, it is highly informative just to go at least once.
Still lying about that? Amazing. The evidence is clear. Now go read the Justification law.
Lying? Lying?! Maggie, you like to present yourself as tough – insinuating that collectivists are weak and anti-gun people are afraid of guns. Yet you don’t have the courage to come right out and say that in a specific situation you would shoot someone with the intention of killing them. “I obey the justification law” goes right up there with “that depends what your definition of “is” is”, and “I voted for the war before I voted against the war”. It’s a weaselly answer. Cite the post where you admitted that you would shoot someone. Until then, you’re just a wanna-be and a poser.
Another interesting pic, if you look more closely. Blood stains on the cushion and target practizing in the back. I think I'll give CSI a call...
"One of my first memories is learning to shoot a gun in my backyard." How old was she? Must have been 3-5 years? Shooting a gun at that age?
And guns are not completely illegal in the UK, just a lot harder to get and more control on the types available. There seems to be a misconception that "gun control" means outlawing firearms altogether, and that guns are not allowed at all in the UK/Europe. Statements like "if your government allows you" just betray ignorance.
Statements like that stem from news items where people defended themselves only to harassed and prosecuted by the authorities. First with guns and then other implements.
They think we have the OK corral going on every day and we think they are required by law not to defend themselves. The misconceptions go both ways. :D
Statements like that stem from news items where people defended themselves only to harassed and prosecuted by the authorities. First with guns and then other implements.
They think we have the OK corral going on every day and we think they are required by law not to defend themselves. The misconceptions go both ways. :D
Who thinks you have the OK Corral going on? I was one of
them, remember? Brits have a tendency to think that what we see in the movies and on TV is "just Hollywood". Deep down we believe America is not really so different from the UK -hey we almost speak the same language -how could it be? Then we get here and find it isn't all make-believe, and that's why we sometimes suffer from culture shock more than our different-language speaking neighbors -we don't expect it to be so foreign! Ask any Brit expat. Very few Brits believe deep-down that average American citizens actually have guns in the house, just as we don't realize that steam really does billow from ironworks in the city streets or that the ET halloween scene is not terribly far-fetched. Our press may try and make us think that it's all Dodge City, but we don't believe them, either :lol:
Pictures are nice...noticed lots of Dogs and only a couple of cats featured in the group of pix...
Lotsa Gun people are Dog people (goes back to hunting I 'spose)
I may or may not stick my shovel in here. You ask me, the quotes in the captions have a slightly defensive overall tone that I don't think should be there. The gun people are the antigenocide people, and anyone caught demanding an apology for that deserves drowning in a sheep-dip.
Meanwhile, speaking of O.K. Corral, who else saw the recent Bizarro comic on "Shootout at the O.K. Chorale?"... "I don't like your tone, Mister."
I'm getting rid of my guns...
"Back away fuckers... I've got a loaded light-bright & I'm not afraid to use it!"
Michael Moore? Not at all, I commented because I see foreigners on the net seem to have a distorted picture of the US from TV, Hollywood, and the rabidness? ... rabidinity? ..... conviction, many of us show on the subject.:)
Perhaps some of what you might view to be distorted has become that way because of the conversations that go on over the net.
I for one realize quite plainly that what you see on tv isn't true. I also realize that the media 'distorts' every story to suit themselves, whatever the motivation is. My views about gun culture in the US largely stem from online discussions on the subject which has only led me to believe that in some ways, the 'distorted' view portrayed by the media overall is not as distorted with regard to guns as it is for other issues.
I think Hagar's sentiments would be quite aptly applied to the views of most mainstream Aussies.
[COLOR="Brown"]But why did I find that slightly erotic?[/COLOR]:eek:
Don't fret it, Shawnee; there
is an undeniable sensual pleasure in watching the machinery work. A firearm is an engine, and a well crafted one.
You have a gun fetish UG? Very interesting...
The hoplophobes I referred to clearly are not in any of the pictures.
Nor in any of this thread's posts, I might add.
Strange, isn't it. When people don't understand why you don't share their opinion, they revert to calling it 'fear' and 'ignorance' and 'stupidity'. Hi pot, meet kettle.
If it's not fear, then why do you care if I have guns or not?:confused:
If it's not fear, then why do you care if I have guns or not?:confused:
There's a difference between fear of guns and fear of getting shot to death. I also care that you have guns because it doesn't take much for your gun to get into the hands of a "criminal". Then there's the general dislike I have for death.
If it's not fear, then why do you care if I have guns or not?
Why do
you care? Gun owners seem always so defensive.
Leave the gun. Take the cannolis.
There's a difference between fear of guns and fear of getting shot to death. I also care that you have guns because it doesn't take much for your gun to get into the hands of a "criminal". Then there's the general dislike I have for death.
I didn't specify what you were afraid of, I only reasoned fear is the only thing that would make you care .... and I was right.
I disagree that it wouldn't take much for my guns to get into the hands of criminals. Actually it would take a lot, so much in fact it wouldn't be worth their while. There are
much easier ways for them to get guns. :D
Why do you care? Gun owners seem always so defensive.
Leave the gun. Take the cannolis.
What the fuck are you babbling about? Why do I care, what? And how am I being defensive? :confused:
I think it's a Sopranos reference, Bruce.
It's the original Godfather, you commie!
I was addressing the first two sentences. :cool:
XoB, generally speaking, "gun owners seem always so defensive"; because, THEY ARE defensive and THEY "CARE" enough to be active defensive rather than passive defensive. You may take Hippikos' statement as a compliment. ;)
What the fuck are you babbling about?
See what I mean?
Now, take 2 Prozacs and call me in the morning.
Your post make no sense. You're babbling. You asked me nonsensical questions that had no bearing or connection to what I said.
YOU better take some Prozac or something stronger. :crazy:
I didn't specify what you were afraid of, I only reasoned fear is the only thing that would make you care .... and I was right.
Actually, according to research, fear is at the root of anger, not caring.
I don't think you have to fear something to think it's wrong. Of course, you could argue that there is a root fear, but that's based on a lot more things than the simple emotion brought about which is named fear. For example, I don't see a gun and immediately feel afraid. As has been pointed out, it's an inanimate object. However, when I see a gun in the hands of a loony, I feel fear, which is employed as my defense mechanism. I personally think there's a big distinction there.
What does everyone else think?
Oh, that shooting the loony is one possible course of action that could be constructive -- from everyone's point of view except the loony's.
It tends to take the pressure off to know he can't threaten your continued healthy existence without your having a rebuttal to hand.
PM John Major and the Australian Parliament euchred you Ozzies out of that, by and large, you know. Fortunately for reducing crime and increasing common sense, the pendulum now seems to be swinging the other way. Once you once again encourage self defense even unto extremity, your crime rate will permanently plummet: it's just human nature. One shouldn't make laws that fly in its face.
John Howard thanks UG, and there was a referendum on the subject of semi-automatic weapons only. Citizens were never permitted to carry concealable weapons prior to that referendum in any case. The only difference now is that people in the city who have no explainable use for a semi are not allowed to have them. People in rural settings are still allowed to have them for reasonable purposes.
I think you'll find the crime rate in Australia is substantially lower than that of the US. More facts required?
There are much easier ways for them to get guns. :D
Yeah, walk into Wally World and plop down a few bucks. :worried:
I am a former gun owner/frequent shooter. My interests have shifted, but I have nothing against people owning guns, and would own some again now that my kids are grown...if I could justify the expense. And I'm pretty damn Liberal compared to Maggie and UG.
I am of the "if you didn't want to get shot, why were you stealing my car stereo?" school for the most part. Yes, I know that would be illegal. But, Liberal or no, I do believe that the fear of getting shot is a powerful deterrent to the criminal element. Also, I'm Liberal enough to not want the police and the army to be the only ones in my country who have guns. It strikes me as unfair.
Yeah, walk into Wally World and plop down a few bucks. :worried:
Criminals can't buy guns at Wally World.
Gun owners seem always so defensive.
The phrases describing gun owners who
aren't defensive are "former gun owners" or "citizens disarmed by their own government".
Criminals can't buy guns at Wally World.
I didn't think there was a background check.
Unfortunately, the lady who is pissed off at her husband and his mistress (insert situation here) can, but that's just a criminal wannabe.
I didn't specify what you were afraid of, I only reasoned fear is the only thing that would make you care .... and I was right.
...
There's a difference between fear of guns and fear of getting shot to death. I also care that you have guns because it doesn't take much for your gun to get into the hands of a "criminal". Then there's the general dislike I have for death.
If it's not fear, then why do you care if I have guns or not?:confused:
No.
The hoplophobes I referred to clearly are not in any of the pictures.
Never heard of hoplophobia? Most people haven't. The made-up word to describe people who fear guns hasn't caught on. Not even longtime gun enthusiasts are familiar with the term.
The fear frefered to in this thread, and to which Maggie refers by hoplophobia is the fear of guns, nothing else.
XoB, generally speaking, "gun owners seem always so defensive"; because, THEY ARE defensive and THEY "CARE" enough to be active defensive rather than passive defensive. You may take Hippikos' statement as a compliment. ;)
We are defensive because people keep trying to take our guns and restrict our Constitutional right to own and carry them, unrestricted.
If that stops, we will have no reason to be defensive... it is quite simple. They know that, they are
playing stupid when they act like they don't know why we are insulted by their actions and attempts at actions.
I didn't think there was a background check.
Your failure to think isn't a good reason to spread misinformation.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsindex.htm However, when I see a gun in the hands of a loony, I feel fear...
How do you identify loonies? Because they have a gun? Or because they just "look that way"?
Yeah, that post, earlier, made me laugh.
I didn't specify what you were afraid of, I only reasoned fear is the only thing that would make you care .... and I was right.
Actually, according to research, fear is at the root of anger, not caring.
I don't think you have to fear something to think it's wrong. Of course, you could argue that there is a root fear, but that's based on a lot more things than the simple emotion brought about which is named fear. For example, I don't see a gun and immediately feel afraid. As has been pointed out, it's an inanimate object. However, when I see a gun in the hands of a loony, I feel fear, which is employed as my defense mechanism. I personally think there's a big distinction there.
What does everyone else think?
Nonsense. Would you care if I had a kitten? Would you care if I had a boat? Would you care if I had a toaster? No, you only care if I have a gun, because you're not afraid of what I will do with a kitten, boat or toaster.
The only reason you care, the only reason you think you're entitled to pass judgement, is your fear. :p
There are rational and irrational fears, right? Like: fear of fire, fear of heights, these are probably pretty good, instinctive responses.
Fear of deadly weapons, this seems to fall in the rational category. Fear of kittens or toasters, these would be irrational. [COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR] :2cents:
btw: I'll take my answer "off the air" ...I don't plan to spend the next 50 posts defending a position I haven't stated. I know how these "debates" get.
Fear of a tool that is not being pointed at you is irrational... a car or pneumatic nail-gun is equally as dangerous as a gun (many of tools & poisons I have worked with are more dangerous than my guns), I don't see people freaking-out about them.
Irrational fear.
Is anyone here afraid of Russian nukes? Afraid of nuclear weapons getting into the hands of Al Qaeda? Afraid of North Korea getting nukes? If you are, why? If you're not, why not?
Criminals can't buy guns at Wally World.
How about future criminals?
Originally Posted by MaggieL
Criminals can't buy guns at Wally World.
How about future criminals?
When did we start punishing them?
Is anyone here afraid of Russian nukes? Afraid of nuclear weapons getting into the hands of Al Qaeda? Afraid of North Korea getting nukes? If you are, why? If you're not, why not?
OT... You may want to start a new thread, IMO.
The phrases describing gun owners who aren't defensive are "former gun owners" or "citizens disarmed by their own government".
If gun owners weren't so
offensive, they wouldn't have to be so
defensive. ;)
There is no call to be insulting. I will no longer converse with you on this.
Fear of a tool that is not being pointed at you is irrational... a car or pneumatic nail-gun is equally as dangerous as a gun (many of tools & poisons I have worked with are more dangerous than my guns), I don't see people freaking-out about them.
Irrational fear.
Is anyone here afraid of Russian nukes? Afraid of nuclear weapons getting into the hands of Al Qaeda? Afraid of North Korea getting nukes? If you are, why? If you're not, why not?
..0OT... You may want to start a new thread, IMO.
Answer the question. If I shouldn't be afraid of a gun anymore than I'm afraid of pnumatic nail gun that is not pointing at me, then you shouldn't be afraid of Russian, North Korean, or Al Qaeda-ian nukes, right? Same logic.
So... are you afraid?
There is no call to be insulting. I will no longer converse with you on this.
Pu-leeeeeze!
There is no call to be insulting. I will no longer converse with you on this.
Good point, rkz...now tell your cohort:
Your failure to think isn't a good reason to spread misinformation
.
Let's see, how does this work? Oh yeah, put people on the defensive, then when they get defensive point out they are defensive because they are scared and/or stupid.
But, I guess it's OK for you guys to do it. :3_eyes:
I take no responsibility for anyone else's posts.
I am neither scared or stupid. I have stated my past with weapons, the ranch, how I have used them my whole life; as well as my political beliefs with them.
I am very moderate, IMO.
If one does not like guns, don't buy one or get into a relationship with a gun owner... simple.
If it is that big a deal... move to a nation not built on the principle of the second amendment. Again, simple.
move to a nation not built on the principle of the second amendment. Again, simple.
In other words: America, love it or leave it.
How is that the position of someone who is very moderate?
I take no responsibility for anyone else's posts.
...
And yet you object to my being insulting (which I don't think I was), but not to someone who agrees with your point's being insulting. That's real moderate.:right:
How is that the position of someone who is very moderate?
[COLOR="White"] >>>>>>> [/COLOR]How is your face not a getting punched-the-hell-off?
Because my new LCD monitor at work is specially designed to be so thin, there is no room inside to hide the little people who would normally punch me in the face.
In other words: America, love it or leave it.
How is that the position of someone who is very moderate?
I am moderate when it comes to gun possession. I have no issue with three day background checks (no longer), I do not feel that people should be allowed to own military grade explosives, I have no issue with people being allowed to bring guns into government buildings, no violent felons owning guns.
The Constitution IS America, yes, if you do not want to be around freedom, you should not be in this country. Just like those who feel that there should be a limit to freedom of speech are not a good fit for living in this nation.
I could care less if they are here. I just think they are going to be uncomfortable.
...Just like those who feel that there should be a limit to freedom of speech are not a good fit for living in this nation.
...
Just like those people who feel that there should be a limit to a person's freedom to own slaves, or a person's freedom to limit a woman's right to vote. The constitution changes with the times. Why isn't it time to be civilized and change gun rights? I'm not endorsing limiting all guns, just the ones predominntly used in crimes.
How do you identify loonies? Because they have a gun? Or because they just "look that way"?
Quite correct. You only know a loony with a gun *after* they've shot up the schoolhouse full of Amish children.
Your failure to think isn't a good reason to spread misinformation.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsindex.htm
Stating that she was unaware (i.e., "I didn't think") of such a statute isn't really spreading misinformation. Of course, for those of us who have never held an incorrect assumption or opinion, I can certainly see where that would be offputting.
Just like those people who feel that there should be a limit to a person's freedom to own slaves, or a person's freedom to limit a woman's right to vote. The constitution changes with the times. Why isn't it time to be civilized and change gun rights? I'm not endorsing limiting all guns, just the ones predominntly used in crimes.
Illegal ones, mostly shotguns and revolvers? That is really going to bum-out all the trap shooters out there. It is a very popular hobby.
So, we stop making all shotguns and .38 revolvers, criminals are going to go "damn, we can't use our favorites any more... guess we'll just stop shooting now", is that it?
Keep in mind, making guns illegal will do nothing, people will still make them. Especially patriots.
Why isn't it time to be civilized and change gun rights?
Because arbitrarily abrogating people's right to defend themselves isn't "civilized", and to call it that is begging the question.
Stating that she was unaware (i.e., "I didn't think") of such a statute isn't really spreading misinformation.
The misinformation was the claim that criminals could "walk into Wally World and plop down a few bucks" and buy a firearm. "I didn't think" was the excuse offered for spreading that misinformation after the fact.
The assertion was misinformed, and repeating it spreads it. That's pretty clearly "spreading misinformation".
Of course, were we talking about George Bush, I could scream "He's a liar!" and all the BushBashers would nod sagely. Here my much more limited claim was "Shawnee is spreading misinformation", and your response is "Not really". :-)
Is anyone here afraid of Russian nukes? Afraid of nuclear weapons getting into the hands of Al Qaeda? Afraid of North Korea getting nukes?
Do you really believe passing a law forbidding any of those would make any significant difference? None of the groups you cite seem to be shy about violating US law. And the same is true of domestic criminals.
Because arbitrarily abrogating people's right to defend themselves isn't "civilized", and to call it that is begging the question.
Speaking of, I saw this the other day, and it reminded me of you:
Speaking of, I saw this the other day, and it reminded me of you:
Misusing "begging the question" reminds me of grocer's apostrophes, "open all nite" signs, being unable to correctly use "affect" and "effect" or "loose" and "lose", or writing things like "for all intensive purposes".
That a usage is common doesn't make it correct. Claims that "the language is dynamic" are used too often to cover frank ignorance.
That some twit heard the phrase "begging the question" and assumed incorrectly that he knew what it meant doesn't actually create a new meaning identical with "raising the question".
Somehow I doubt we'd be better off using "petitio principii" in place of "begging the question".
Do you really believe passing a law forbidding any of those would make any significant difference? None of the groups you cite seem to be shy about violating US law. And the same is true of domestic criminals.
Nice feint. The question was: are you afraid of those things. Are you?
Because arbitrarily abrogating people's right to defend themselves isn't "civilized", and to call it that is begging the question.
Willingly becoming peaceful IS being civilized. Resolving conflict non-violently IS civilized.
civilization, culture with a relatively high degree of elaboration and technical development. The term civilization also designates that complex of cultural elements that first appeared in human history between 8,000 and 6,000 years ago. At that time, on the basis of agriculture, stock-raising, and metallurgy, intensive occupational specialization began to appear in the river valleys of SW Asia. Writing appeared, as well as urban centers that accommodated administrators, traders, and other specialists. The specific characteristics of civilization are: food production (plant and animal domestication), metallurgy, a high degree of occupational specialization, writing, and the growth of cities. Such characteristics originally emerged in several different parts of the prehistoric world: Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, India, the central Andes, and Mesoamerica. However, some civilizations did not have all of these characteristics (e.g., the Classic Maya had no metallurgy, and true writing apparently never emerged in central Mexico or the central Andes). Many anthropologists now focus on a political factor—the development of hierarchical administrative bureaucracies—as the critical characteristic of all civilizations.
Don't see anything about peace or lack of conflict. While you may find it desirable, it's not a part of being civilized.:cool:
How do you identify loonies? Because they have a gun? Or because they just "look that way"?
I identify them as the ones trying to shoot innocent people.
Fear of a tool that is not being pointed at you is irrational... a car or pneumatic nail-gun is equally as dangerous as a gun (many of tools & poisons I have worked with are more dangerous than my guns), I don't see people freaking-out about them.
Irrational fear.
Anyone who isn't wary around nail guns should probably rethink their position. Those things can be very dangerous...by accident even.
Willingly becoming peaceful IS being civilized. Resolving conflict non-violently IS civilized.
Your postiton is that it is uncivilized to defend yourself? I think that's nonsense. Me, I'm completely peaceful...except if attacked.
I'd like to see you "resolve conflict non-violently" with a mugger or a rapist. How quickly your facile platitudes would dissolve...
Anyone who isn't wary around nail guns should probably rethink their position. Those things can be very dangerous...by accident even.
There are habits of behavior that should be followed around guns, be the nail guns or otherwise. The same is true of aircraft on the ground, be they jets or propeller.
The dangerous area around a gun is the direction it would discharge if fired--"where it's pointed", which is why one is at pains to keep all guns pointed in a safe direction. With a jet you need to stay out of the intake area at the front and the exhaust. The arc of an aircraft propeller should be avoided, even if the engine is not operating.
I identify them as the ones trying to shoot innocent people.
They may be loonies. Or they may simply be criminals.
There's a difference between insanity and ethical impairment.
Nice feint. The question was: are you afraid of those things. Are you?
I'm not afraid of things. It's people that worry me. Including people who wish to disarm me, while claiming they are "civilized".
Now I've answered your question, it's your turn.
ditto
If you're going to agree with or dispute something, you'd probably better quote it. Otherwise we just see these standalone responses whose referents are unclear.
I was refering to you Maggie as you well know, unless you really are that obtuse.
I was refering to you Maggie as you well know, unless you really are that obtuse.
With "ditto"? Which of my postings?
I'm not being obtuse, you're being obscure. When two people are reading and posting at once, the order in which posts appear can be confusing.
Don't worry about it Maggie. :) It's not worth my time bothering with you.
. . .I'm pretty damn Liberal compared to Maggie and UG. . . Liberal enough to not want the police and the army to be the only ones in my country who have guns. It strikes me as unfair.
Very well said, Elspode. I wish all those who call themselves liberals had your abundant common sense.
I won't quote xoxoBruce's post, but it's also one that shows why I think he's smart. Kudos is in order.
Remember, everyone (and especially you, Spexx): Spexxvet is not rational on the subject of killing tools. He refuses to learn anything at all on the subject, preferring to stay swaddled in his maladaptive fantasies, never understanding whenever this is possible the evils that are firmly supported by his entire thinking on the matter. Were he ever to understand arms as they should be understood, his entire intellectual ediface on the topic would come crashing about his ears, and he lives in apparent terror of this. It's a great pity, because were his ediface to collapse and reality be allowed to shine its glorious ray in, he'd become a much better citizen of this Republic than he is now, with his pro-crime and pro-genocide views, not consciously known to him but evident in his posts.
I, of course, have neither of these maladaptive views.
This is fortunate, as it keeps me from committing crimes against humanity and being tried and hanged at The Hague. Spexxvet, unfortunately, has no such luck.
The willing eschewal of violence may be quite civilized indeed, but it cannot be relied upon, human free will being what it is. Every generation of man starts from the same baseline, with the very same percentage of those with violent predelictions. Essentially, every generation must undertake to purge the brutes from itself: there are very few assy grandfathers, but more than a few assy twentysomethings, isn't that so? They either convert to something better or they die, inbetween measures like imprisonment going without saying. Again, every generation has those who are not willing to "resolve conflict nonviolently," and there is no prospect of an end to this. The reason being that evolution takes no notice of civilization.
Gun people appreciate civilization more than nongun people -- for they can defend it regardless of the level of violence the uncivilized bring to bear on it. The likes of Spexx run out of effect if the baddies bring anything more frightful or efficient than a thrown rock.
Well, Ali, you just admitted defeat: "it's not worth my time" is left-code for "my idea can't persuade you, for you've got the better one."
And we know this even if you don't or can't. We understand BBS psychology and human shiftiness.
There's a biiiig difference between "my idea can't persuade you, for you've got the better one." and "my idea can't persuade you, for you've convinced yourself far past rational arguments can"...
Guns don't scare me. People who are obsessed with them do, the same way that corpses dont scare me but people who fuck them do. Anyone who is that downright religious about their guns just puts me on edge, makes me wary, the same way someone who raises pit bulls or carries chainsaws does. They may be perfectly sane, but if they turn out not to be, or flip out, or convince themselves that all 'communists' need to die...
Fuck.
Well, Ali, you just admitted defeat: "it's not worth my time" is left-code for "my idea can't persuade you, for you've got the better one."
And we know this even if you don't or can't. We understand BBS psychology and human shiftiness.
No, that's not it UG. I'm not responsible for teaching Maggie basic comprehension of text. If she can't understand what's clearly written before her, she'll need to go get herself an education elsewhere.
If she can't understand what's clearly written before her...
You mean this?
ditto
Anyone who isn't wary around nail guns should probably rethink their position. Those things can be very dangerous...by accident even.
I agree, and that is my point... you don't see people organizing around the idea of "banning" them because they are "dangerous" all on their own. No tool is.
As far as the civilized thing goes, there is not one civilized nation on this planet without gun ownership of some kind.
This Civilized nation was founded on the ideal of individuality, not the socialist cooperative.
For those who are Americans, it is the
most Civilized concept.
This is why an individual's right is always
more important than the comfort of the masses, all of our Amendments are there to ensure that that ideal is protected in
EVERY way.
As I have stated before, it takes a special person to be free... you have to put up with your neighbor's freedom and you may not like what he says and does any more than he may like what you say and do. Freedom means tolerance, if you don't have it, you need to find a place where they don't require it.
This is not a "love it or leave it" statement. I have no issue with change in the law... but basic concepts in what a nation stands-for, no. Particularly, what I think are good, very good, ideas.
Free speech can be pesky too, let's get rid of that also...
If we outlaw guns it will have no effect on criminal gun ownership... it is just feel-good politics to divert attention from real problems that politicians could actually help with, but are unwilling to because of their controversy or cost. Some of you have just bought into it.
Willingly becoming peaceful IS being civilized. Resolving conflict non-violently IS civilized.
I keep stating this... if you don't like guns, don't buy one. Nothing keeps one from this inaction.
In fact if you don't own a gun, congratulations!!!!:girlband:
Don't worry about it Maggie. :) It's not worth my time bothering with you.
You posted "And your point is?" and "Ditto." in two consecutive posts. Prior to that were three of my posts replying to three other comments in the thread, each identified with an excerpted quote. Each post had a point you either might have missed ("And your point is?"), or agreed with ("Ditto.").
If you can't be bothered to write clearly, then at least try not to clutter up the thread with unintelligible noise, and then blame the resulting confusion on others.
Of course, were we talking about George Bush, I could scream "He's a liar!" and all the BushBashers would nod sagely. Here my much more limited claim was "Shawnee is spreading misinformation", and your response is "Not really". :-)
Nice segue, oh great and omniscient one.
No agenda there. :rolleyes:
No agenda there. :rolleyes:
Having such wildly different standards isn't evidence of an agenda on *my* part.
Guns don't scare me. People who are obsessed with them do...
Obviously you don't find all obsessions about guns equally objectionable. :-) Somehow I don't think my refusal to surrender my weapons to people who seem obsessed with disarming me rises to an obsession itself.
...I'd like to see you "resolve conflict non-violently" with a mugger or a rapist. How quickly your facile platitudes would dissolve...
Having never been mugged or raped, I can only surmise that I've done a very good job of non-violently resolving the conflict
by not putting myself in that position in the first place. Carrying a gun and shooting someone who you think is going to mug or rape you (because it's too late if they've already started the act, isn't it?) is not the only method you can use to not be mugged or raped.
Wildly different standards? Do you know *me*? Do you have a close relationship with *me* and understand my *viewpoints*?
Can you shove astericks up your *ass*?
.I'd like to see you "resolve conflict non-violently" with a mugger or a rapist. How quickly your facile platitudes would dissolve...
So, according your "pro-violently" standards, everyone can be his own judge? You can decide to punish her/him with the death penalty executed by yourself choosing from your armory which you have aquired because of that reason?
You can decide to punish her/him with the death penalty executed by yourself ...?
Legal use of deadly force, even though it is accordance with the law on Justification, is not "executing a sentence". And yes indeed, you rely on your own judgment, and thereafter your actions are subject to the judgment of a court.
Having never been mugged or raped, I can only surmise that I've done a very good job of non-violently resolving the conflict by not putting myself in that position in the first place.
Congratulations. So, obviously if someone finds themselves being mugged or raped, they must have "placed themselevs in that position", and it must be *their* fault. Pretty classic case of "blaming the victim".
Carrying a gun and shooting someone who you think is going to mug or rape you (because it's too late if they've already started the act, isn't it?)
If it's "too late", might as well let them finish, eh?
The actual legal standard that you're blowing off as "think they're going to" is in that law on Justification that you keep refusing to read.
Wildly different standards? Do you know *me*?
The observation about "different standards" wasn't addressed to you, it referred to Elspode's demurrer that you somehow hadn't spread misinformation. The standards in question are Elspode's.
Having never been mugged or raped, I can only surmise that I've done a very good job of non-violently resolving the conflict by not putting myself in that position in the first place.
[LIST=1]
[*]Easy comment to make if you're a male... if not, I apologize
[*]I'll bet many rape/mugging victims thought that... right up until the time they were raped/mugged.
[*]Perhaps you live a life where you don't HAVE to travel in areas where muggings and rapes are more common. Not all of us are so lucky.
[/LIST]
Carrying a gun and shooting someone who you think is going to mug or rape you (because it's too late if they've already started the act, isn't it?) is not the only method you can use to not be mugged or raped.
From everything I have read, guns are more often used in self-defense by simply being seen. If someone is approaching you and you see them coming, the sensible thing is to run. If they chase, then you draw the weapon and, as I understand it, more often than not, they then flee. Even if they have a gun, they usually don't want to get into a gunfight anymore than the potential victim.
The observation about "different standards" wasn't addressed to you, it referred to Elspode's demurrer that you somehow hadn't spread misinformation. The standards in question are Elspode's.
Wow, that's impressive Maggie. You managed to figure out Shawnee was talking to you, even if you hadn't made it clear who you were addressing in the first place!
You're comming along nicely I see. :) Congratulations. Keep up the good work.
Obviously you don't find all obsessions about guns equally objectionable. :-) Somehow I don't think my refusal to surrender my weapons to people who seem obsessed with disarming me rises to an obsession itself.
Actually, I really do - as I've said before, I'm anti-gun as far as the concept of a weapon to kill people with is concerned... but I still believe it's your right to have one.
People obsessed with them on both sides of the argument have an unnatural and, to me, somewhat creepy fixation that i find disconcerting... though admittedly, I'm less worried about a gun control freak shooting me than a gun ownership freak.
Wow, that's impressive Maggie. You managed to figure out Shawnee was talking to you, even if you hadn't made it clear who you were addressing in the first place!
.
I knew she was addressing me because she quoted me, even though she didn't use quote markup.
If you're asking for disambiguation, my phrase "Different standards" referred to "Bush is a liar" vs. "Shawnee isn't spreading misinformation". I was happy to explain that (as I do here once again), rather than simply spouting snarkyness about the supposed clarity of a one word post.
I'm less worried about a gun control freak shooting me than a gun ownership freak.
A "gun control freak" will disarm you so *someone else* can shoot you--or otherwise assault you--with impunity. A "gun ownership freak" thinks you should be allowed to decide for yourself whether you will have the ability to defend yourself if that happens. You're a hell of a lot safer from a legal gun owner than you are from a criminal.
Of course, if you're currently in a jurisdiction where the state has already disarmed the law-abiding, it's rather academic. Where are you, again?
You really do amuse me sometimes Maggie. :) Thanks for that.
Congratulations. So, obviously if someone finds themselves being mugged or raped, they must have "placed themselevs in that position", and it must be *their* fault. Pretty classic case of "blaming the victim".
...
No, a classic case of "blaming the victim" is trying to put an end to welfare, after all, welfare recipients are just a lazy drain on society, right MaggieL? And when you kill somebody that you *thought* was going to *mug* you or *rape* you, but actually wasn't going to, would it then be the *victim's* (the dead person) fault?
Carrying a gun does *not* *ensure* that you won't be raped or mugged, *does* *it*? Avoiding *trouble* is a more *civilized* way of living than putting yourself in *harm's* way packing a gun, *hoping* that you won't *have* to kill somebody, or *actually* killing someone. Then again, I *suppose* there are some people who *look* for trouble.
A "gun control freak" will disarm you so *someone else* can shoot you--or otherwise assault you--with impunity. A "gun ownership freak" thinks you should be allowed to decide for yourself whether you will have the ability to defend yourself if that happens. You're a hell of a lot safer from a legal gun owner than you are from a criminal.
Of course, if you're currently in a jurisdiction where the state has already disarmed the law-abiding, it's rather academic. Where are you, again?
I dont (and won't) have a gun, so I'm not worried about someone taking it away. But someone without a gun isn't going to be very likely to shoot me, either. Simple logic, maggie - someone with 30 guns is a teeny tiny bit more likely to shoot me than someone without any, simply by the fact that the person without them CAN'T. Talking the two extremes here, that is. Now, the mugger down the street with a Colt .45 is a LOT more dangerous than the reasonable, sane person with fifteen different kinds of assault rifles, but... thats a different matter.
In Taiwan, there's madatory military service at 20, but no private gun ownership... or at least, veryveryvery little, if any. But crime is almost non-existant here -- maybe a holdover from the fact that only 20 or so years ago, this was a military dictatorship? Beats me.
Simple logic, Ibram - someone with 30 guns is a great deal more likely to protect you than someone without any, simply by the fact that the person without them is at a great disadvantage.
I dont (and won't) have a gun, so I'm not worried about someone taking it away. But someone without a gun isn't going to be very likely to shoot me, either...Beats me.
Yes, "beats you" might very well be what happens. I understand from a friend with first-hand expereince that gender-variant people are not well-tolerated in Korean culture.
You say you "don't (and won't) have a gun"...I was wondering if your government would even let you have one. If not, your desires in this issue are rather moot.
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200701/kt2007011722331911990.htm
Apparently according to this article, it's actually possible for a private South Korean citizen to have a gun, assuming he pays off....I mean...*convinces* the cops he can see, isn't crazy and doesn't have a criminal record.
If one wants to buy a gun, the shop sends the item to the police station. The buyer goes under thorough examination, such as eye examination, mental check, criminal record check, and must answer other questions. After the potential buyer’s records are cleared, the police hands the item to the buyer.
But the example you cite of the mugger and the reasonable, sane person isn't "another issue", it's exactly the issue you should be concered with. The mugger is particularly dangerous to you as long as he is better armed than you are. The reasonable sane person might concievably come to your aid if you're attacked by the mugger.
Of course, if the government has disarmed the sane person, and not the mugger, you probably can't expect much help.
I'm always amazed by the people who seem totally bemused and comforted by the fact by the fact that "if there were no guns they couldn't be shot", when it seems quite clear to me that there has
never have been "no guns" since the moment guns were invented, and that imaginary state seems quite likely to stay imaginary. Furthermore they seem to be quite unable to picture how a gun might serve them rather than threatening them. Since only the cops and the bad guys have guns on TV, that must be how the real world operates...
Wouldn't it make sense to concentrate your strategies on situations that actually might happen? Of course, if your government won't let you defend yourself, maybe your time actually is better spent rationalizing why that is somehow A Good Thing. even though as far as I can see, it isn't.
Legal use of deadly force, even though it is accordance with the law on Justification, is not "executing a sentence". And yes indeed, you rely on your own judgment, and thereafter your actions are subject to the judgment of a court.
It
is executing a sentence. It's your sentence when you decide to use your gun. There's no judge, no jury, just you and your gun decide whether someone is guilty and should be punished with the death penalty. That's Wild West to me, not modern civilization.
Simple logic, Ibram - someone with 30 guns is a great deal more likely to protect you than someone without any, simply by the fact that the person without them is at a great disadvantage.
That's the catch 22, you need the gun because the other one has. At the end everybody has a gun meanwhile looking suspicious to the other in case he uses it.
Guns don't kill people, Chuck Norris kills people! :bolt:
Yes, "beats you" might very well be what happens. I understand from a friend with first-hand expereince that gender-variant people are not well-tolerated in Korean culture.
You say you "don't (and won't) have a gun"...I was wondering if your government would even let you have one. If not, your desires in this issue are rather moot.
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200701/kt2007011722331911990.htm
Apparently according to this article, it's actually possible for a private South Korean citizen to have a gun,
...
Maggie, last I checked, Taiwan is different than Korea.
Simple logic, Ibram - someone with 30 guns is a great deal more likely to protect you than someone without any, simply by the fact that the person without them is at a great disadvantage.
Unless the person with 30 guns shoots you, or you accidentally get caught in the crossfire, or there's and accidental discharge that kills you. Then you'd have been safer if the person had no guns.
Yeah, uh... that would all be really interesting, maggie, if I was in Korea.
Yeah, uh... that would all be really interesting, maggie, if I was in Korea.
Mea culpa. Googling too late at night. And too much news from that benighted peninsula of late. I don't want to make a Korea of it. :-)
So...checking on *Taiwanese* gun laws, apparently you folks are not anywhere near as well-off as the South Koreans.
Taiwan has some of the toughest gun-control laws in the world. Private ownership of firearms is largely outlawed; people convicted of illegally making, transporting or selling guns can face the death penalty.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,674823,00.html
And yet your per-capita homicide rate is apparently higher than the US, and homemade guns are considered a significant problem.
Not seeing anything about a "crossbow violence" problem, though... :-)
Unless the person with 30 guns shoots you, or you accidentally get caught in the crossfire, or there's and accidental discharge that kills you. Then you'd have been safer if the person had no guns.
You seem to live in a world full of hypotheticals. How do you live with the constant danger that your neighbor will hit you with his car? Surely it should be confiscated.
You're in more crossfire danger from the criminal; as a local gangsta told a reporter friend of mine when asked why there was so much collateral damage in Da 'Hood, his answer was "Because none of us can shoot, and we're all high". It's really hard to stay proficient with a weapon you're not allowed to own.
It is executing a sentence. It's your sentence when you decide to use your gun. There's no judge, no jury, just you and your gun decide whether someone is guilty and should be punished with the death penalty. That's Wild West to me, not modern civilization.
No, it's not a sentence. It's legal use of deadly force...whether I do it or a cop does.
Self-defense is not a "punishment". If a person attacking me survives my defense, he'll still be criminally liable for his actions, and subject to trial and punishment by the judicial system. If my defense was a "sentence", that would be double jeopardy.
Is it really your position that I have no right to self-defense? I find that appalling. If your allegedly "modern civilization" abrogates my right to defend myself if attacked, I'll take the "Wild West", thanks.
You seem to live in a world full of hypotheticals. How do you live with the constant danger that your neighbor will hit you with his car? Surely it should be confiscated.
....
Like your hypothetical that you need a gun to protect yourself from crime. How do live with the constant danger that your neighbor will rape you with his penis or mug you? Surely you should shoot him before he does.
I was just responding to the hypothetical that someone who owns 30 guns would be more likely to protect you. I think it would be more likely that a gun causes injury to an innocent person than "protect" a person. Have you ever "protected" someone with your gun, Maggie?
Simple logic, Ibram - someone with 30 guns is a great deal more likely to protect you than someone without any, simply by the fact that the person without them is at a great disadvantage.
2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable: terrorist acts that shocked the civilized world.
Tell me what part of the World is not civilized? Then tell me how they found out about 9-11?
What was the first civilized nation? When was that?
Does that hyperbole sentence, that sounds like a newspaper headline, prove that the "civilized world" contains no violence? That the "civilized world" never goes to war? The civilized world never approves of executions? Get real.:rolleyes:
Have you ever "protected" someone with your gun,
Have you ever used your life insurance?
Willingly becoming peaceful IS being civilized. Resolving conflict non-violently IS civilized.
Removing arms by legislation
is force... you will have to do it at gunpoint. You will be the gun toting fanatic saying you want to have the guns, via the cops, just not anyone else... sound familiar?
You want a police state... there are plenty you can move to.
There is NOTHING civilized about a police state.
BTW, it bothers me that you have continued to use that quote as long as you have for your sig.
It was a bad, and way out of character, moment for me.
I abhor name calling and it is extremely rare for me to do so... I think you will agree with that.
I have said nothing until now because I definitely deserved for you to use it, as it was uncalled for, regardless of how far you pushed.
However, you have had it as a sig beyond what I feel is tactful.
Why can't I spell definitely without spell check getting it... it is not a difficult word to spell?
There was nothing in my last post worth discussing? :sniff:
Willingly becoming peaceful IS being civilized. Resolving conflict non-violently IS civilized.
Removing arms by legislation is force... you will have to do it at gunpoint. You will be the gun toting fanatic saying you want to have the guns, via the cops, just not anyone else... sound familiar?
[COLOR="Blue"]You want a police state[/COLOR]... there are plenty you can move to.
There is NOTHING civilized about a police state.
(blue emphasis mine)
I would never force you to give up your guns. I appeal to you to voluntarily give them up. Please do not presume to tell me what I want.
BTW, it bothers me that you have continued to use that quote as long as you have for your sig.
It was a bad, and way out of character, moment for me.
I abhor name calling and it is extremely rare for me to do so... I think you will agree with that.
I have said nothing until now because I definitely deserved for you to use it, as it was uncalled for, regardless of how far you pushed.
However, you have had it as a sig beyond what I feel is tactful.
...
Say please and I'll gladly change it. :shock: :biglaugha :bolt:
Huh? I was under the impression you wanted to legislate more gun control restrictions. I was wrong.
Please.
Huh? I was under the impression you wanted to legislate more gun control restrictions. I was wrong.
I probably came across that way, and Maggie may even have riled me up enough that I posted to that effect (yeah Maggie, I abdicate all responsiility and hold you to blame:p ). But I would really like to convince handgun owners, and only handgun owners, that the world would be a better place without handguns.
Tell me what part of the World is not civilized? Then tell me how they found out about 9-11?
What was the first civilized nation? When was that?
Does that hyperbole sentence, that sounds like a newspaper headline, prove that the "civilized world" contains no violence? That the "civilized world" never goes to war? The civilized world never approves of executions? Get real.:rolleyes:
Have you ever used your life insurance?
Would you please explain this? I don't understand what you're getting at.
OK, I'll spell it out for you.
W-H-A-T P-A-R-T O-F T-H-E W-O-R-L-D I-S N-O-T C-I-V-I-L-I-Z-E-D-? :cool:
OK, I'll spell it out for you.
W-H-A-T P-A-R-T O-F T-H-E W-O-R-L-D I-S N-O-T C-I-V-I-L-I-Z-E-D-? :cool:
T-H-E P-A-R-T O-F T-H-E W-O-R-L-D T-H-A-T D-O-E-S N-O-T
1. Have a highly developed society and culture.
2. Show evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable
IMHO, people who use violence to resolve conflict do not meet the second part of this definition.
So, you're saying most of Africa is not civilized. And China, well most of Asia for that matter. Oh and Australia. Of course South America. And don't forget the USA. Man, are you gonna get hate mail. :lol:
So, you're saying most of Africa is not civilized. And China, well most of Asia for that matter. Oh and Australia. Of course South America. And don't forget the USA. Man, are you gonna get hate mail. :lol:
I'd not lump everyone together. Some Earthlings aren't civilized.:worried:
civ·i·lize Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[siv-uh-lahyz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -lized, -liz·ing. to bring out of a savage, uneducated, or rude state; make civil; elevate in social and private life; enlighten; refine: Rome civilized the barbarians.
Here's another one:
civ·i·lized Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[siv-uh-lahyzd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.
2. polite; well-bred; refined.
3. of or pertaining to civilized people: The civilized world must fight ignorance.
4. easy to manage or control; well organized or ordered: The car is quiet and civilized, even in sharp turns.
I guess some people are still barbarians, even if they do live in a civilized country.
But I would really like to convince handgun owners, and only handgun owners, that the world would be a better place without handguns.
Well, I know your belief is sincerely held, but to be convincing you'll need better reasons, because the ones you have suck pretty badly. Furthermore, "the world would be a better place without handguns" is a misplaced argument, because--beyond being untrue--it's not a possible part of any solution set. Prohibitionism doesn't work in the real world. All such laws can possibly do is disarm the law-abiding.
Rome civilized the barbarians.
Intreresting example. The way you could tell who was a Roman citizen on the street was they were the only ones who were permitted to carry arms.
Yeah, and they were the ones with the army too....and the slaves.
(blue emphasis mine)
I would never force you to give up your guns. I appeal to you to voluntarily give them up.
Excellent. My reply is
molon labe. Now we can move on.
Yeah, and they were the ones with the army too....and the slaves.
They're your exemplar, not mine.
Oh...that last post was for you btw Maggie, just in case you couldn't figure that out.
Well, I know your belief is sincerely held, but to be convincing you'll need better reasons, because the ones you have suck pretty badly.
Some people still believe the earth is flat, too. :cool:
Furthermore, "the world would be a better place without handguns" is a misplaced argument, because--beyond being untrue--
That's your opinion, not fact.
it's not a possible part of any solution set.
Anything is possible. People in Philadelphia don't drink directly from the Delaware River anymore, do they?
Prohibitionism doesn't work in the real world.
Have I endorsed prohibitionism? No, just rational thought.
All such laws can possibly do is disarm the law-abiding.
While I don't endorse this, that would make it easier for gun-using criminals to be erradicated. The pro-gun contingency seems to want to have a gun to protect them from potential attacks, right? If only criminals had handguns, they would esily be identified as potential attackers, and can be shot on sight. You'd like that, wouldn't you? You could change carreers, get into law enforcement, and finally get to kill someone - use that handgun you so intensely *need* to carry.
If only criminals had handguns, they would esily be identified as potential attackers, and can be shot on sight.
Do you acknowledge that this would require exponentially more police officers than we have right now?
If only criminals had handguns, they would esily be identified as potential attackers, and can be shot on sight. You'd like that, wouldn't you? You could change carreers, get into law enforcement, and finally get to kill someone - use that handgun you so intensely *need* to carry.
Oh, come on! Talk about resorting to personal attacks!
If you're gonna argue the point, use reasoned points, not personal slurs against someone.
"Finally get to kill someone..." Sheesh! :headshake
Eh, it was just a little tongue in cheek. I've heard much worse. :)
Do you acknowledge that this would require exponentially more police officers than we have right now?
Naw, just wait them out. As they're identified, they're dead. It'll be a hunt of attrition. ;)
There's a biiiig difference between "my idea can't persuade you, for you've got the better one." and "my idea can't persuade you, for you've convinced yourself far past rational arguments can"...
Indeed there is. I know it, and you are yet not big enough a man, being but fifteen, to credit me with knowing it -- simply because I annoy you. That's all-important to you right now.
This is the difference between adolescence and, oh, about twenty-two... been there, done that. You'll probably do about the same.
Rational arguments are indeed the only kind that do convince. I am, quite rationally, persuaded that gun banners' efforts, if successful, will help kill my descendants -- but if unsuccessful, my descendants will not die in pogroms.
Don't seek for evil where it is not, laddie. You'll get laughed at, and head-wagged, and get derisive fingers pointed in your direction.
Spexxvet may actually have read
Raging Against Self Defense on
JPFO's website. He exhibits every one of the symptomatic patterns of thought as if he'd read the page and is now going down a checklist.
You'd like that, wouldn't you? You could change carreers, get into law enforcement, and finally get to kill someone - use that handgun you so intensely *need* to carry.
What will help Spexx become psychologically well adjusted? Precisely the thing he fears doing most -- and fears it so much he keeps it totally repressed: he must embrace the savagery that burns in his own heart, radiating through these fantasies of his (see above) about the gun and the gun people, and then find nondestructive outlets to express it. I can say from experience martial arts are one excellent way, as is SCA-type fighting/fencing with rattan swords; there is something so elemental about beating on somebody with a big ol' stick that it utterly satisfies any killer-ape urge you have. Thanks to the good armor the SCA wears, you can thrash the hell outta somebody and not hurt him, hardly a bruise. Meanwhile, and entirely in fairness, he's trying the same with you.
It's a rough and martial game, but in the process of exercising these killer faculties, the necessity of balancing them with civilized restraint becomes not only clear, but intensely desired by the practitioners of these violent arts also. The SCA, like the knights of old, speak of this simply as "chivalry," and this is clearly where all the ideals and ramifications of chivalry spring from.
Good soldiers in the combat arms, in particular the highly-trained SpecWar types, also find this balance.
Hunting game animals will also give outlet to this. Some, like the late Jeff Cooper, say that something life-and-death like hunting becomes through its seriousness something that is quite a sacrament -- Cooper has used that word -- and I suppose they have reason to. Personally, I'd have to shoot a few critters and get back to you.
But I would really like to convince handgun owners, and only handgun owners, that the world would be a better place without handguns.
Still subscribing to the Theory of the Evil Gun, I see. That subscription is how I know you're not rational on this topic. You've been getting the truth dinned into you from three different people who know each other only through the Cellar, and yet
nothing do you learn. An anti-handgun view, Spexx,
facilitates handgun crime, for the reason that the very same features of a handgun that make it attractive to commit crimes with also adapt the handgun as an efficacious defense against those very crimes. It then becomes a matter of who has a gun and who doesn't. You're asking me to be helpless in the face of a crime. That, Spexx, is pure, immoral, reprehensible and atrocious barbarism, and it is a barbarism I would not ever inflict upon you, yet you would afflict me with this atrocity?
Civilized? You? No. Not at bottom. But salvation is nonetheless at hand: see above.
Thank heavens
London has become civilized and outlawed those evil guns.
Replacing rows of rundown high-rise flats and maisonettes are 2,000 new homes, a new sports centre, a new leisure centre and award-winning library, thanks to a £290m regeneration investment.
Peckham, which has tried much to shake off its mean streets image in the last decade, has once again hit the headlines for the wrong reasons.
Not too far from where Damilola bled to death, three people were killed and one seriously wounded in three separate attacks between last Saturday and Tuesday.
WHEN YOU OUTLAW GUNS, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.
Trite? Yes. Cliché? Yes. But it's still true. :eyebrow:
Thank heavens London has become civilized and outlawed those evil guns. WHEN YOU OUTLAW GUNS, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.
Trite? Yes. Cliché? Yes. But it's still true. :eyebrow:
From
here:
Murders with firearms (per capita) by country
(1998-2000). Does not include accidental deaths by firearms.
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
Good of you to pluck one incident to point out. But big picture facts indicate that the US has 27 times more firearm murders than the UK, where firearms are illegal. Coincidence? I think not.
Reduce the number of firearms in a society, and reduce the number of firearms deaths.
In fact, from
here:
Murders (per capita) by country
(1998-2000). Total murders by all means.
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
All those would-be gun-using killers did not convert to stabbers, beaters, stranglers, or whatever – the murder rate in the US is still 3 times UK’s murder rate.
WHEN YOU OUTLAW GUNS, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.
Trite? Yes. Cliché? Yes. But it's still true.
The question really is this: is it worth giving up firearms to reduce the murder rate by two-thirds? Notice, I said giving up, not have them taken from you.
Thank heavens London has become civilized and outlawed those evil guns. WHEN YOU OUTLAW GUNS, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.
Trite? Yes. Cliché? Yes. But it's still true. :eyebrow:
But would those three people still be alive if there was more legal gun ownership?
Would they guy in bed have woken up in time to defend himself? He was attacked while he was asleep -clearly the attackers had already planned to get him when he was unable to fight back -with or without a gun.
And the guy at the icerink -if the gun used to shoot him were legal, the killers might have been able to argue self defence.....
....and imagine if some of those onlookers had been legally armed and decided to bring down the attackers. Could've been a whole lot more dead..... Would they still have shot him if there was a higher chance that he was armed? well they picked a crowded ice arena in the first place, so it doesn't seem like consequences for themselves were something they were considering.
An awful lot of speculation is required to arrive at the conclusion that these three deaths would have been prevented by legal gun ownership. But a little easier for me to imagine that more guns could have led to more deaths.
Monster has a good point. In terms of the number of deaths, there would be a wash, at best. For instance, if Bruce was in a fender bender with Maggie, and got out of his car and approached Maggie, and she was the only one armed, she might feel threatened and shoot Bruce. Or if Bruce was the only one armed, he might shoot her. Either way, there's only one dead body. The shooter would have all the time in the world to shoot, and probably wouldn't miss. If both were armed, they could rush their shots, and shoot innocent bystanders, or they could both hit their targets and kill each other. It's much more likely to have a higher body count.
While I don't endorse this, that would make it easier for gun-using criminals to be erradicated. The pro-gun contingency seems to want to have a gun to protect them from potential attacks, right? If only criminals had handguns, they would esily be identified as potential attackers, and can be shot on sight. You'd like that, wouldn't you? You could change carreers, get into law enforcement, and finally get to kill someone - use that handgun you so intensely *need* to carry.
I keep bringing this up, I wonder if you read all the posts or don't think of it yourself.
Making a gun of your own, or for others is quite simple.
I get the impression that you think that if you outlaw something it will just go away.
Many of the guns that are used by gangs in the US come from China along with their drugs. The laws would only harm those who are law abiding citizens, making them criminals... they would accomplish
nothing else.
BTW, Canada and a few other nations have as many guns per household as the US and lower murder and violent crime rates than the US and the UK. Guns are not the problem, it is a social consciousness/attitude problem.
My personal feeling is we have lost our commitment to the family.
Places in the US with more liberal carry laws like Texas have lower violent crime rates.
Interesting debate going on and if you don't mind, I'm going to jump in for a bit. I own two guns and both are for home defense, a 9mm and a pump action shotgun. They're kept in plain sight at the end of the hallway, locked in a glass case. Once every 3-4 weeks I'll take them to the range so I don't get rusty. Only the ruger has ever been fired anywhere but the range but I was quite happy that I had it at the time.
I dislike the idea of needing them, I don't mind the fact that I have them. It's a right under our constitution, and they're to be used strictly for personal security reasons. I think many people may go overboard with their love for firearms, but then they may say the same about my love for computers.
Welcome to the Cellar, Jordan. :D
Good of you to pluck one incident to point out. But big picture facts indicate that the US has 27 times more firearm murders than the UK, where firearms are illegal. Coincidence? I think not.
My point is outlawing guns in Britain didn't make them go away.
The question really is this: is it worth giving up firearms to reduce the murder rate by two-thirds? Notice, I said giving up, not have them taken from you.
No.:p
I am not the problem or the solution.
Monster has a good point. In terms of the number of deaths, there would be a wash, at best. For instance, if Bruce was in a fender bender with Maggie, and got out of his car and approached Maggie, and she was the only one armed, she might feel threatened and shoot Bruce. Or if Bruce was the only one armed, he might shoot her. Either way, there's only one dead body. The shooter would have all the time in the world to shoot, and probably wouldn't miss. If both were armed, they could rush their shots, and shoot innocent bystanders, or they could both hit their targets and kill each other. It's much more likely to have a higher body count.
This entire scenario has been utterly, completely debunked in all 38 states of the Union that have strongly liberalized concealed carry of weapons, Spexx. It simply does not happen, and is a hoplophobic fantasy of yours brought on by your unbalanced thinking on the subject -- as set forth in
Raging Against Self Defense. I'll rely more on the experience of 38 states, with the body count and the economic loss count to crime going permanently down, than on the views of one hoplophobe. You should rely upon that yourself -- even if you're terrified of what this might open a trapdoor to, inside your forebrain.
We know the truth, and it has made us free. But if you can't know the truth, it shan't make you free. I think I'd want to be free of what afflicts you, though, if I stood in your shoes. You're really being creepy, Spexx.
Guess I'd better link to
Raging Against Self Defense to show people what I'm on about.
The question really is this: is it worth giving up firearms to reduce the murder rate by two-thirds? Notice, I said giving up, not have them taken from you.
You mean volunteer for genocide, and extra crime, the only results ever seen from this kind of thing. Spexx, even with your twisted values, it's not worth it even for you.
This idea we moral people reject forever and ever. If you wish to be a moral person, you must reject it forever also. Do it, man! No matter how much it scares you, I guarantee disarming yourself so you get killed without means of resisting it, retail as in crime or wholesale as in genocide, is much more terrifying, much more the pit of despair.
I don't think anyone could possibly disagree, though, that someone with NO guns is less likely to shoot me than someone with any.
Right?
Right but wholly irrelevant.
A) The world cannot be sterilized from danger, nor would you want to live in such a place. But more importantly,
B) I caution, resist the urge to solve politics with equations. It seems like it would work that way sometimes, but math is perfect and humans are imperfect.
In exactly the same way that someone with no hands is less likely to shoot you than someone with any. Fantasy-land scenarios are a waste of time.
I keep bringing this up, I wonder if you read all the posts or don't think of it yourself.
Making a gun of your own, or for others is quite simple.
I get the impression that you think that if you outlaw something it will just go away.
Many of the guns that are used by gangs in the US come from China along with their drugs. The laws would only harm those who are law abiding citizens, making them criminals... they would accomplish nothing else.
This reminds me of an "old" joke, which I tell for the humor and not at
all as part of the debate:
Q: How many gun control proponents does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. They just pass a law against darkness.
In exactly the same way that someone with no hands is less likely to shoot you than someone with any. Fantasy-land scenarios are a waste of time.
Isn't it a fantasy-land scenario that you'll have a gun and be able to use it to stop personal injury or loss of posessions? For that to happen, you would have to have your gun with you, loaded, safety off, at the ready, and anticipate the threat, be able to correctly determine if the threat is real (don't want to make a victim out of an innocent person), be able to aim and hit a target, and have the willingness to kill and face the consequences of killing - all before the aggressor does it to you first.
I wonder how many American thought, in 1860, that slavery could be eliminated?
The factof the matter is that firearms are here to stay. There is no way of hunting down each and every criminal and taking away their weapons. Do you truly believe that our law enforcement is capable of rounding up every gun that every criminal currently has, and then keeping new ones from being smuggled in? If that were the case then no country would have a drug problem either.
Keep in mind, I'm not advocating the use of firearms. As far as I'm concerned, they serve no purpose beyond killing. I'm a gun RIGHTS advocate, I believe that you have the right to defend what is yours within reason. If someone breaks into my apt and goes after me, my girlfriends, or Kait, we should have the right and ability to protect ourselves.
Isn't it a fantasy-land scenario that you'll have a gun and be able to use it to stop personal injury or loss of posessions? For that to happen, you would have to have your gun with you, loaded, safety off, at the ready, and anticipate the threat, be able to correctly determine if the threat is real (don't want to make a victim out of an innocent person), be able to aim and hit a target, and have the willingness to kill and face the consequences of killing - all before the aggressor does it to you first.
I was in just that situation 1 1/2 years ago and the story's
hereIsn't it a fantasy-land scenario that you'll have a gun and be able to use it to stop personal injury or loss of posessions?
There have already been several firsthand accounts of that exact thing here. How many do you need?
There have already been several firsthand accounts of that exact thing here. How many do you need?
How many do you need to justify all the shooting deaths? Philadelphia averaged more than a shooting death a day last year. How many lives does it take to justify foiling the theft attempts of Mrnoodle's sound equipment, Kitsune's car, and Jordan's generator?
I'd rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it.
Tell me, do you ever gamble? That's what criminals do, they know that they run the risk of getting shot and/or going to jail for doing something illegal... then they go out and commit the crime anyways. They willfully break the law, and the police can't be everywhere at once. Now you're saying we eliminate half of their risks? I just don't think so. Why should I work my butt off for a generator I may only use ever once 2-3yrs only to have a crook waltz off with it?
Not far from where I grew up they fire off guns for a birthday, Independence Day, New Years, sporting events and occasionally at one another. Are you saying that I should give up my defensive tools and allow others to prowl the streets with their firearms at the ready? Nopers, not gonna happen.
...
Tell me, do you ever gamble?
I don't gamble with my life or my family's life. I think owning a gun is taking a gamble. Will a child get hold of it? Will there be an accidental discharge that kills someone? Will I misjudge a situation, and kill an innocent person? Will my brandishing a gun cause someone to kill me before I can kill them?
... Now you're saying we eliminate half of their risks?
No. My position is about handguns. Can you protect yourself and your family with a rifle or shotgun?
... Why should I work my butt off for a generator I may only use ever once 2-3yrs only to have a crook waltz off with it?
Would you have killed someone - taken a life - over a generator that you use once every 2-3 years?
... Are you saying that I should give up my defensive tools
No. There are plenty of defensive tools. Motion lights, alarms, tasers, bullet-proof vests, and all kinds of behavior. Most of them can't be used to commit crimes or hurt others.
... and allow others to prowl the streets with their firearms at the ready? ...
No. I disagree that handguns would be around long, if it's handled properly. Just by enforcing or strengthening current laws, for instance a mandatory life sentence for using a handgun to commit a crime or for irresponsible use of a handgun, those who misuse handguns will be out of circulation pretty quickly. If they switch to rifles, they'll be more identifiable. I know there will be exceptions to these rules, but guns will go away the same way cigarette smoking is going away.
Listen, you can pack a piece, and protect your family
while they are with you. Other gun owners may not be as responsible as you. If your child's classmate gets a hold of his father's gun, brings it to school and shoots your child, the gun in your pocket didn't help. If someone breaks into a house and steals guns, and shoots you pre-emptively while they're stealing your generator, your gun didn't help. If you get raped in a parking lot because your gun is locked in your gun safe at home, it didn't help. But, because you reserve the right to own a gun, others have guns, and can use them to commit crimes, and have lethal accidents. Is it worth it?
The only way that any child could get a hold of my firearms is to either take the key from my keychain or else break the glass. As I've already stated, I only have the two guns and they're kept in plain sight. I would notice right away if either were missing. Also, an innocent person would not be prowling my property and no one should never EVER pull out their gun unless you KNOW you may need it.
I can easily defend myself and property with a shotgun, the rifle concept is rather foreign to me.
I never shot AT them, merely discharged into the ground. That generator also supplied power to an eightyish great grandmother next door. This is the same woman who feeds the neighborhood cats went shopping for me and made me chicken soup while i was ill last week. Thanks to the cold front that came after the storm, the only things she had drawing on my generator were her refrigerator and a ceiling fan. IF there had been no cold front, and IF I had not scared away the thieves, she would have had serious issues with the heat and humidity in the aftermath of the storm.
Motion lights? Do they have raccoons or opossums where you live? Bullet proof vests don't do anything to defend the home. Tasers require you to get too close and when you're talking two or three to one odds, I'd like to keep things as much in my favor as possible. FYI: Tasers can and are used to commit crimes, they're simply not as "popular".
Do you truly think that by signing a new amendment into place abolishing firearms, the criminals will simply cease to carry them in the next ten to twenty years? Do you know the laws they have against rape, drug possession, distribution, spousal abuse, child abuse...? Yet these crimes continue, why is that? Possibly because in order to first be a criminal one must first make a conscious choice to break the law. If we have people that are willing to break the law in order to commit all of the above and NONE of the aforementioned crimes require firearms in order to commit them, then it stands to reason that none of these crimes would be prevented by abolishing firearms.
Abolishing firearm sales in the United States will only mean that they will be smuggled in from Mexico, Puerto Rico or Canada by criminals. That means that law abiding citizens such as myself and many others would be at even MORE of a disadvantage against them.
Oh yeah, your argument that others should loose their property for someone elses negligence holds no water. Should you lose your car because someone went out and purpousfully ran over their mother-in-law? They aimed their weapon, pressed the "trigger" and took someone's life. I reserve the right to own a gun and a car, others have guns and cars, both are used to commit crimes and both are involved in lethal accidents.
Let's abolish cars as well. :)
Would you have killed someone - taken a life - over a generator that you use once every 2-3 years?
Absolutely, scum that prey on people trying to survive in the wake of a natural disaster deserve to die. Shooting looters has always been
Standard Procedure for all levels of government and should be followed by the citizens. :apistola:
Your concern for this lower than whale shit, predator that causes untold suffering and possibly death to people in trouble, is foolish. You remind of the guy that went, unarmed, to live with the bears because they were just misunderstood creatures doing their thing. He was 100% right. Their thing was to eat him.
Concern for human life should always be applauded, the issue is when excessive force is taken. I would backup anyone that shot the people trying to steal their generator. That would be out of basic principle, you can not discern what an individual's mindset is at the time of crisis. The best you can do in that particular situation is interpret their actions and act, which is what I did. A mandatory curfew in effect, my neighbors lawnmower in my yard and my AC unit no longer functioned, I "interpreted" that they were stealing my generator. IMO, their lives are worth no less or more than my own, I was merely defending my property as I deemed I should. Personally, I could not make the decision to shoot at them and so chose to scare the crap outta them and call it in.
I applaud Sexxvet for her (his?) vigilance and agree with many of her/his views, I simply lack the optimistic idealism to believe it would ever work. I came into this debate in the middle, and apologize for stepping on anyone's toes in the process.
Just saw a program about US home videos. There was a footage of a guy who was angry that his neighbour walked on the porch of his house to get to the street.
He was waving a gun at the neighbour who was yelling "Yeah, why don't you shoot me". He did shot him, 3 times. The neighbour was dead. All on video...
Ouch - Something tells me there might have been more to the story than just that simplified version. Even so, you don't bait someone waving a gun by screaming "shoot me", and you don't go waving a gun at someone just to prove a point.
This is why there are laws about keeping your firearms locked up and secured. The trigger happy SOB should get life in prison and the dead guy's probably been punished enough by now. The jail time won't bring the dead guy back, but maybe he shouldn't have been antagonizing his gun wielding neighbor... Just my $.02
Absolutely, scum that prey on people trying to survive in the wake of a natural disaster deserve to die. Shooting looters has always been Standard Procedure for all levels of government and should be followed by the citizens. :apistola:
So you would and could take someone's life for material things?
Your concern for this lower than whale shit, predator that causes untold suffering and possibly death to people in trouble, is foolish.....
You've got me wrong. I was asking to find information, it was not a rhetorical quetsion, though I'd rather see a non-violent resolution to the conflict. Jordan resolved the conflict without violence. Well done. And I'm glad they were caught and punished.
Right but wholly irrelevant.
A) The world cannot be sterilized from danger, nor would you want to live in such a place. But more importantly,
B) I caution, resist the urge to solve politics with equations. It seems like it would work that way sometimes, but math is perfect and humans are imperfect.
In exactly the same way that someone with no hands is less likely to shoot you than someone with any. Fantasy-land scenarios are a waste of time.
Completely true, but my point right from the start, far from 'ban guns!', was...
Guns don't scare me. People who are obsessed with them do, the same way that corpses dont scare me but people who fuck them do. Anyone who is that downright religious about their guns just puts me on edge, makes me wary, the same way someone who raises pit bulls or carries chainsaws does. They may be perfectly sane, but if they turn out not to be, or flip out, or convince themselves that all 'communists' need to die...
Fuck.
Therefore, the statement that people with guns are more dangerous than those without them applies only to the extremes in politics, not to the criminals - which is exactly why I dont want to ban them in the first place.
Are you done arguing with me yet? I'm NOT anti-gun. I'm not for gun control.
The only way that any child could get a hold of my firearms is to either take the key from my keychain or else break the glass.
But not every gun owner is as responsible or thorough as you are.
...
Motion lights? Do they have raccoons or opossums where you live? Bullet proof vests don't do anything to defend the home. Tasers require you to get too close and when you're talking two or three to one odds, I'd like to keep things as much in my favor as possible. FYI: Tasers can and are used to commit crimes, they're simply not as "popular".
Or as "lethal". My point is that there are plenty of things you can do to protect yourself and your home besides having a handgun at the ready to kill someone. Isn't that true?
Do you truly think that by signing a new amendment into place abolishing firearms, the criminals will simply cease to carry them in the next ten to twenty years? Do you know the laws they have against rape, drug possession, distribution, spousal abuse, child abuse...? Yet these crimes continue, why is that? Possibly because in order to first be a criminal one must first make a conscious choice to break the law. If we have people that are willing to break the law in order to commit all of the above and NONE of the aforementioned crimes require firearms in order to commit them, then it stands to reason that none of these crimes would be prevented by abolishing firearms.
So you're saying that laws against rape, drug possession, distribution, spousal abuse, child abuse don't stop those crimes, so laws against gun posession won't stop gun crimes, is that right? By that logic, we should revoke the laws against rape, drug possession, distribution, spousal abuse, child abuse - after all, they're not stopping those crimes. Let's just not even attempt to stop those crimes, the way you want to not even attempt to stop gun posession. I do not support legislating the abolishment of firearms, I support voluntarily giving them up.
Oh yeah, your argument that others should loose their property for someone elses negligence holds no water. Should you lose your car because someone went out and purpousfully ran over their mother-in-law? They aimed their weapon, pressed the "trigger" and took someone's life. I reserve the right to own a gun and a car, others have guns and cars, both are used to commit crimes and both are involved in lethal accidents.
Let's abolish cars as well. :)
Actually, you lose "property" for other people's negligence all the time. Car insurance rates increase in proportion to the likelihood of your "group" getting into an accident. Same with health insurance. Your buddy's doughnut eating is increasing the cost of your health insurance. Go figure.
When you reserve the right to own a gun, you reserve the right of others to own a gun... others who may use those guns for criminal activities or who allow children to have access to them.
I've heard the "(insert ludicrous object here) kill people, and nobody wants to outlaw them" argument before. I'm sure somebody's been "spooned" to death before, so let's outlaw spoons. Bottom line: Handguns were made for killing people. (Quick, someone jump in and say how they are used for sport or protection from dangerous animals.) They were made for killing people. The world would be a better place without them.
So I should voluntarily pay the price for someone elses negligence? Now we're back at the "let's all give up our car" theory, around and around we go lass.
You show me something that's as accurate as a handgun at 20 feet with 100% of the same stopping power and, (after a bit of judicial research), I'll be the first one applauding.
I never said the laws against rape, drug possession, distribution, spousal abuse, child abuse etc don't help to prevent these crimes. What I did say was that none of these violent crimes require a gun and that those who make a conscious choice to break the law would do so regardless of the time they must spend in jail. I never advocated eliminating those crimes from the dockets. By all means, let's increase the penalties on them.
But again I say, your argument holds no water. I reserve the right to drive and own a car, for dinner tonight we all had steak, potato wedges and spinach with a desert of lime sorbet. Does that mean that "Average Joe Citizen" will pay for our health care if we all come down with cholesterol induced heart failure? Incrementally speaking, sure, but somehow I doubt it. Yes, increments amassed can lead to much more; the same way many creeks may lead into a stream and several streams will form a river.
IMO: That river never formed in any of your arguments. Show me how we can prevent criminals from obtaining their guns via our Mexican/Canadian borders and I'll be the first to sign up for your Utopian Society. You're correct in saying that handguns were made for killing, but it's the person who dictates what the target is.
Again I say that I'd rather have it and never need it, than need it and not have it.
So you would and could take someone's life for material things?
In the case of looters, absolutely. :yeldead:
No. There are plenty of defensive tools. Motion lights, alarms, tasers, bullet-proof vests, and all kinds of behavior. Most of them can't be used to commit crimes or hurt others.
Then you'll be canceling your insurance, life and home owners, since you have all these defensive tools, right?
If you're screwing with my property, me on my property. You are subject to get shot at.
38
Hell, if you are so adamant about bearing arms, how about pocket nukes for everyone, man, woman and child? If that isn't a deterrent, I don't know what is.
You show me something that's as accurate as a handgun at 20 feet with 100% of the same stopping power and, (after a bit of judicial research), I'll be the first one applauding.
How about a shotgun, ma'am?
...
But again I say, your argument holds no water.
...IMO: That river never formed in any of your arguments. Show me how we can prevent criminals from obtaining their guns via our Mexican/Canadian borders and I'll be the first to sign up for your Utopian Society. You're correct in saying that handguns were made for killing, but it's the person who dictates what the target is.
...
And your argument is held in a seive.
Regarding guns:
"Show me how we can prevent criminals from obtaining their
guns via our Mexican/Canadian borders and I'll be the first to sign up for your Utopian Society"
Same logic:
Regarding drugs:
"Show me how we can prevent criminals from obtaining their
drugs via our Mexican/Canadian borders and I'll be the first to sign up for your Utopian Society"
Regarding rape:
"Show me how we can prevent criminals from obtaining their
penises via our Mexican/Canadian borders and I'll be the first to sign up for your Utopian Society"
In the case of looters, absolutely. :yeldead:
Just curious, have you ever killed anyone?:worried:
Then you'll be canceling your insurance, life and home owners, since you have all these defensive tools, right?
Who said I have all those things? :eyebrow:
Spexxvet, I've followed this thread since it's start and re-read it from beginning to present. Yet, I haven't grasped your definitive opinion yet. Would you answer some questions directly and concisely?
1. Do you think there should be an amendment to the constitution to remove guns from American civilians?
2. Do you think guns should be legislated out of the hands of American civilians?
3. Do you think American civilians should voluntarily give up their firearms?
4. Do you think any of the above alternatives will have a major impact on violent crime figures?
5. Do you think Americans who are opposed to gun ownership are more civilized than Americans who own guns legally?
If firearms were made illegal and if the police could round up every last one out of the hands of every citizen, the only way for them to get into the hands of criminals would be through our oh-so-tight national borders. Sorta like how the drugs get through on a daily basis, except it would probably be easier to sneak the guns through.
This is the idea you've been proposing is it not, that all firearms be handed over to the police and henceforth be illegal? Theoretically possible, but so is the chance of the Earth getting devoured by a von Neuman machine. Not too likely to occur, but theoretically possible.
Just curious, have you ever killed anyone?:worried:
I shot a man in reno, just to watch him die.
Who said I have all those things? :eyebrow:
Since they're readily available, you'd be foolish not to and much cheaper than insurance.:cool:
Ouch - Something tells me there might have been more to the story than just that simplified version. Even so, you don't bait someone waving a gun by screaming "shoot me", and you don't go waving a gun at someone just to prove a point.
This is why there are laws about keeping your firearms locked up and secured. The trigger happy SOB should get life in prison and the dead guy's probably been punished enough by now. The jail time won't bring the dead guy back, but maybe he shouldn't have been antagonizing his gun wielding neighbor... Just my $.02
There's nothing more to it. Interesting fact is that it was the gunmans own cam system which recorded the shooting. He installed it to prove that his neighbour was tresspassing his property. Sure tresspassing is a transgression, but certainly not such a felony to kill him? Why not use a dog to keep intruders away?
In the case of looters, absolutely.
So you are for the death penalty for thieves? Can't we just chop of their hands?
Nope, no hand chopping, looters die. :cop:
So you are for the death penalty for thieves? Can't we just chop of their hands?
How are you going to catch them? ;)
Maybe kill em first and then chop their hands? To be sure?
...1. Do you think there should be an amendment to the constitution to remove guns from American civilians?
No.
2. Do you think guns should be legislated out of the hands of American civilians?
No.
3. Do you think American civilians should voluntarily give up their firearms?
Yes, but only handguns.
4. Do you think any of the above alternatives will have a major impact on violent crime figures?
Yes
5. Do you think Americans who are opposed to gun ownership are more civilized than Americans who own guns legally?
No, but they're more civilized than those who
use handguns, legally or illegally.
Hope that helps. Let me know if I can answer any more questions.:)
If firearms were made illegal and if the police could round up every last one out of the hands of every citizen,
You want guns so that
if you are attacked, or
if someone tries to steal something, or
if...
the only way for them to get into the hands of criminals would be through our oh-so-tight national borders. Sorta like how the drugs get through on a daily basis, except it would probably be easier to sneak the guns through.
So should we just give up on making drugs and rape illegal, for the same reason?
This is the idea you've been proposing is it not, that all firearms be handed over to the police and henceforth be illegal?
No. Voluntarily give up your HANDGUNS, and keep them legal - it won't matter. If "law abiding" citizens did not have handguns, then criminals will be easily identified and dealt with. Make punishments for misusing a handgun - whether in a crime, an accident, or treating them irresponsibly - a life sentence with no parole, and the use of handguns will dwindle, and hopefully die.
Theoretically possible, but so is the chance of the Earth getting devoured by a von Neuman machine. Not too likely to occur, but theoretically possible.
Probably about the same likelihood that you'll need a gun to protect yourself from harm, huh?
Maybe kill em first and then chop their hands? To be sure?
Is this really Saddam Hussein?
Is this really Saddam Hussein?
Shhh, only you know it...
Theoretically possible, but so is the chance of the Earth getting devoured by a von Neuman machine. Not too likely to occur, but theoretically possible.
Nope, it'll be a
HAARP machineBingo! you're catching on. If I am attacked or if I were to be robbed again, I would have the ability to defend myself. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not a raving bloodthirsty flesh eating gun rights fanatic, merely another human being looking out for myself and my property.
I believe I answered this ludicrous statement before. :dedhorse:
You say that the criminal would be easily identifiable. How? How would the criminal be easily identifiable before he pulls his weapon? They don't all run about in black masks and waving Tommy guns in the air. You can't be sure that a person is a criminal and out to do you harm until they voice their threat.
Seeing as how I've already been in a situation where a firearm came in handy against 3-1 odds, I'm already 100% ahead of your game on this topic.
Question: Because the majority of rapists are male, should all men have to give up their penises?
Question: Because all D.U.I.s only when you mix alcohol and vehicles, should we ban cars or alcohol?
Responsibility lies with the owner and operator, not with an inanimate object.
Bingo! you're catching on. If I am attacked or if I were to be robbed again, I would have the ability to defend myself. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not a raving bloodthirsty flesh eating gun rights fanatic, merely another human being looking out for myself and my property.
I wasn't arguing that. The point that you missed was that your needing a gun to defend yourself is as likely as the police being able to "round up every last one out of the hands of every citizen".
You say that the criminal would be easily identifiable. How?
They'll be the ones with the handguns.
How would the criminal be easily identifiable before he pulls his weapon? They don't all run about in black masks and waving Tommy guns in the air. You can't be sure that a person is a criminal and out to do you harm until they voice their threat.
How can you tell anyone is a criminal before he commits a crime? A rapist doesn't wear a mask, nor does an embezzler, yet those activities are illegal, aren't they. The handgun-using criminal will be easily identified as a criminal when they draw their handgun, and maybe can be dealt with before they use the handgun. Why will it be easier to identify a criminal? Because there'll be no question that the guy with the handgun in his hand might be a law abiding citizen just drawing his handgun for perfectly legal reasons - if he has a handgun, he's a criminal. No brainer.
Seeing as how I've already been in a situation where a firearm came in handy against 3-1 odds, I'm already 100% ahead of your game on this topic.
How old are you? How many times? Do the math: once every "X" years you'll need some sort of protection, and it doesn't have to be a handgun. And remember, the next time you shoot into the ground, one of the generator-stealing-gun-in-the-truck guys might have his handgun with him, and turn and fire, killing you before you get anything but the warning shot off. And then there's your family and loved ones, without you, because you had to reserve the right to have a handgun, which makes it easier for the generator stealers to have a handgun. All this over a generator that you use once every 2-3 years. Hmmmmm. Is it worth it?
Question: Because the majority of rapists are male, should all men have to give up their penises?
No. Penises have other uses, handguns don't. And even misused penises don't kill people. Have you ever heard of someone being "dicked to death"?
Question: Because all D.U.I.s only when you mix alcohol and vehicles, should we ban cars or alcohol?
Just the combination of the two. They each have other uses, handguns don't.
Responsibility lies with the owner and operator, not with an inanimate object.
And consider yourself partially responsible for allowing handguns to be owned and operated by irresponsible people.
your argument holds no water.
IMO: That river never formed in any of your arguments
I believe I answered this ludicrous statement before. :dedhorse:
I'm already 100% ahead of your game on this topic.
These commentaries really don't help your argument, especially since they're bullshit.;)
WHEN YOU OUTLAW GUNS, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.
Trite? Yes. Cliché? Yes. But it's still true. :eyebrow:
With all due respect to you, Bruce, because I think you're great...that statement sticks in my craw because OF COURSE it's true. If you outlaw eye drops only outlaws will have eyedrops because anyone possessing eyedrops will be in violation of the law. I just never thought of that statement as really saying anything particularly profound, though many of the bumper stickers I've seen seem to profess that it is incredibly profound.
As for me, you can have my eyedrops when you pry them from my cold dead hands. ;)
These commentaries really don't help your argument,
At this point I'm considering buying a gun out of spite, simply because
your continued argument is so annoying. A handgun goddamnit...
At this point I'm considering buying a gun out of spite, simply because your continued argument is so annoying. A handgun goddamnit...
Because you don't agree? Tell me more.
Personal attacks? let's not resort to that in public, it would make us both look rather foolish.
If something has never happened to you, and it has happened once to me it seems to me as though I am indeed 100% ahead. Let's break it down into a simple points based system: One to nothing would be a 100% lead, two to one would be a 50% lead and so on. The situation I was in has never occured to you and here's hoping it never does.
Tell me, when these handgun wielding criminals are not deterred by these laws you propose, what then? Criminals don't care about laws, they willingly break them in order to gain whatever their objective is. This is what makes them criminals. I should lose my rights because someone else was violent, malicious or just plain negligent?
How about those people who actually use their rifles for hunting? People in the deep woods or Appalachians who use the meat they hunt to provide food for their subsistence? They should lose their ability to provide fresh meat? The government doesn't help them enough and some are just too proud to sign up for it. It's not a way oflife that i would choose but that's their choice, that's their way of life. Who are you to turn them into criminals by outlawing their guns and living that way?
...
One to nothing would be a 100% lead,....
That's incorrect, but outside the scope of this discussion.
Tell me, when these handgun wielding criminals are not deterred by these laws you propose, what then?
I answered that - go back and read. I don't want to :dedhorse:
Criminals don't care about laws, they willingly break them in order to gain whatever their objective is. This is what makes them criminals. I should lose my rights because someone else was violent, malicious or just plain negligent?
Yes, it happens all the time.
How about those people who actually use their rifles for hunting? ...
Again, read the thread. I have only spoken out against handguns.
At this point I'm considering buying a gun out of spite, simply because your continued argument is so annoying. A handgun goddamnit...
BTW, you've hurt my feelings.
Well I'm sorry Spexx, I don't want you to hurt your feelings. :comfort:But my god man, you've been arguing for page after page and aren't really saying anything (yes, I know I don't have to read, but I did, and now I'm commenting).
The right to own guns is guaranteed in the constitution, end of story. The need to own guns, however subjective, is clearly felt and has been well explained by several posters. Nucular weapons, future criminals, and fantasy worlds where guns don't exist do not belong in an intelligent conversation about gun rights.
If I felt the need to own a gun, to protect myself and my children, while my husband works long hours in a different state, why would you argue with me? Keep in mind that we don't have local police - just the state police about 1/2 hour away. Why do you think I should, hypothetically, give up my handgun?
The right to own guns is guaranteed in the constitution, end of story.
I don't think it's the end of the story. The constitution has changed, and will change again. There was no guarantee for women's voting rights in the "original" constitution, now there is. Same with slavery, and alcohol has been ok, forbidden, and made ok again. We're pretty fickle with the constitution.
Nucular weapons, future criminals, and fantasy worlds where guns don't exist do not belong in an intelligent conversation about gun rights.
If you can't imagine a better world, you'll never acheive it.
If I felt the need to own a gun, to protect myself and my children, while my husband works long hours in a different state, why would you argue with me? Keep in mind that we don't have local police - just the state police about 1/2 hour away. Why do you think I should, hypothetically, give up my handgun?
You can use other means to protect yourselves, like alarms, barbed wire, whatever. Your having handguns available means that handguns are available to others, who can use them against you and yours. No handguns, less chance little Johnny gets accidentally shot by his friend, or purposely shot by his girlfriend's ex-boyfriend.
You can protect yourself with other weapons, including rifle and shotgun. I feel that a world with rifles and shotguns would be better than a world with handguns because they cannot be hidden as easily, and therefore cannot be used in crimes as easily.
There's two good (IMHO) reasons. There's more in the thread.
If you can't imagine a better world, you'll never acheive it.
The difficulty is imagining better people to inhabit this world.
bit from Serenity
Reynolds-
Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.
Communism was another one of these wonderful ideas that forgot to consider people.
The gun folks envision a world where criminals are the ones who live in fear. They envision a world where individuals take responsibility for their own saftey. Your vision is in conflict with their vision.
With all due respect to you, Bruce, because I think you're great...that statement sticks in my craw because OF COURSE it's true. If you outlaw eye drops only outlaws will have eyedrops because anyone possessing eyedrops will be in violation of the law. I just never thought of that statement as really saying anything particularly profound, though many of the bumper stickers I've seen seem to profess that it is incredibly profound.
As for me, you can have my eyedrops when you pry them from my cold dead hands. ;)
Yeah, I know...that's why I mentioned trite and Cliché. I used it because it's a slogan everyone has seen and accepted or rejected.
Sure, it's like the old, the missing object is always found in the last place you look. Well duh, of course, why would you look in the next place if you've found it? But what I think it really says is, it'll be found far down the list of places you think it might be found.
Same with the original slogan in question. I think that it's a reminder the outlaws will still have them, so making a law depriving citizens doesn't do any good, rather than any one still having one is automatically a criminal.
Btw, anyone thinking I'm a rabid handgunner, no. What I'm rabid about is government, and other groups, restricting me. Telling me what I can do, can't do, own, can't own. Get out of my life! :mad:
Bloody anarchists! ( did I spell that correctly )
Hey, who are you calling a spider? :lol2:
At this point I'm considering buying a gun out of spite, simply because your continued argument is so annoying. A handgun goddamnit...
You know what, if I would live in the good ol' US and A, I probably would do the same. Preferably an AK47 or a riot gun, the more deadly the better. Shoot first, ask questions later.
Because EVERY fucking moron has one. Live as the Romans live.
Having said that, I'm glad where I live I don't have to and I sincerely hope that it will never have get to that stage, just as these stupid liability cases, which fortunately doesn't seem to settle down here as well, thank God. I guess it's the price of civil indepence and I prepared to pay that.
IMHO, people who use violence to resolve conflict do not meet the second part of this definition.
I think you misspelled "willingly allows themselves to be a victim."
Perhaps some willfully become a victim of or victimize others through actions related to their fear of being a "willing" victim. Uh, Yeah.
Hey, who are you calling a spider? :lol2:
Well if I called you a spider, that would be short for rock spider which is slang for an old man who likes to have sex with young boys.
So no, I wasn't calling anyone here a spider. :)
I think you misspelled "willingly allows themselves to be a victim."
Which is worst, becoming a victim of loss of posessions, becoming a victim of death, or becoming a killer?
If I weren't prepared to kill in my own self-defense, I wouldn't be carrying.
Emotional arguments that work for you do not necessarily work for others.
What wolf said. If a criminal must die to reduce crime -- of any description -- I can't see harm in it. Some lives are so ill spent that death actually improves matters. Dead men don't kill people and don't steal stuff. Would-be villains who get scared straight when having to make an instant choice between gratifying their unfair and heinous desires and continuing to register a heartbeat are improved thereby. Is this never to be desired?
Of the three choices, becoming a victim of death, untimely, is the worst. Be certain you do not interfere with others' relying upon themselves to save their own lives, or you will be humanity's enemy, and get treated as the barbarian you'd of course be.
I don't think anyone could possibly disagree, though, that someone with NO guns is less likely to shoot me than someone with any.
Right?
Think swords are any less lethal? They're just shorter range, is all, and no need to reload. Might even hurt worse than a bullet.
Sufficiently dead all smells the same.
Isn't it a fantasy-land scenario that you'll have a gun and be able to use it to stop personal injury or loss of posessions? For that to happen, you would have to have your gun with you, loaded, safety off, at the ready, and anticipate the threat, be able to correctly determine if the threat is real (don't want to make a victim out of an innocent person), be able to aim and hit a target, and have the willingness to kill and face the consequences of killing - all before the aggressor does it to you first.
No.
And there is likely at least one civilian defensive firearms training course in your very own home town. There's one just up the road in the next town from mine. They are there to teach you all of that, from beginning to end. The training is equivalent to what the average policeman receives in his first couple of years on the force.
Don't argue with us, Spexx. Your ignorance is absolute, and indeed it discredits your cause to have so complete a vacuity where your information ought to be, while our knowledge is profound and detailed. You lose, and forever. Those who agree with you lose, not only their fortunes, but their lives along with their sacred honor -- because their igorance is absolute, and their ability to take care of severe problems is nil.
Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas is an essay that may be instructive. Take particular note of the paragraph next to the picture of the cold cuts sandwich on white bread, and the remark to the effect of
only the ones who survive have the luxury of worrying about the next day, which I think answers Spexx's fretting about having to live with having killed someone. He doesn't want to, but we've decided we can better live with this than with being dead, about as obvious a no-brainer as I've ever heard of.
Hell, if you are so adamant about bearing arms, how about pocket nukes for everyone, man, woman and child? If that isn't a deterrent, I don't know what is.
Kind of like a suicide vest, is that what you're thinking? :3eye:
Ringer's Paradox comes to our philosophical rescue here, as a freedom restricted [
Minimally -- UG] is a freedom preserved, id est, drawing the line at nukes, but not on an ad hoc basis.
See, it is readily enough possible to use a firearm, even a crew-served weapon, as designed and as intended
and in a moral manner. It is for all practical purposes impossible to use a nuclear weapon as designed and as intended, in a moral fashion. The only exception I can think of is its use in outer space, an environment already full of hard radiation. The pollution problems, back Earthside, to say nothing of others like overkill, are too severe. The circumstances of a general war are about the only ones where anyone thinks it would be even remotely tolerable, and even then their skin still crawls.
The attempted generator stealing story is in
this other thread.Well if I called you a spider, that would be short for rock spider which is slang for an old man who likes to have sex with young boys.
So no, I wasn't calling anyone here a spider. :)
You say that like it's a bad thing.:cool:
Wait, back up, who's having sex with young boys?
And what's wrong with that?
A handgun is just a tool, one made for a specific kind of cover and use.
You can carry it easily, it is easier to use the toilet, drive, keep both hands free, etc, and remain armed. That is all. They are no worse or better than a shotgun.
When there was no law for months and months during the storms our neighborhood's first two actions were to see who had water, power sources, food, medical training and supplies, and firearms with training. We owned our neighborhood and were safe, unlike others who suffered looting and other things that were only reported locally because they did not organize and because they were not guarded.
We were not overt, but if you came into our neighborhood you saw, within moments, that you were watched by someone armed. At night, you were hit with a light and followed with it for a time.
Rifles should not be used for home defense, they go through walls and harm unintended targets. Shotguns are unwieldy and easily taken away in close quarters and around corners.
Handguns are best for home defense, best used with hollow-points... again, a tool for a specific use, not to be imbued with animism.
I have pulled my weapon while working, as I have stated, more than once. The gun was just a tool, always just a tool and I am glad to have had it.
You say that like it's a bad thing.:cool:
Hmmm...well if some old fart tried to have sex with my boys it would be very bad for that old man.
If I felt the need to own a gun, to protect myself and my children, while my husband works long hours in a different state, why would you argue with me? Keep in mind that we don't have local police - just the state police about 1/2 hour away. Why do you think I should, hypothetically, give up my handgun?
Sorry, but one more thing. If you plan to protect yourself from something like a home invasion, you'd better have your handgun with you, ready to fire. If your gun is in the bedroom, or locked in a safe, before you can get to the gun the invader will have bashed in your skull with Jim's old bowling trophy.
Now, if you are carrying the gun around the house, or keep it in a convenient place, it's much more likely to be gotten a hold of by the kids, with the result possibly being injury or death. That's a risk I'm not willing to take, in my house with my family. The likelihood of a home invasion is much less than the likelihood of misuse or accident.
I find that a good dog is best for home invaders. Guns are not always close to hand but a dog is foolproof, even more scary than a handgun anyway and will announce itself before you even open the door. Which gives the bad guys a chance to change their little minds.
Works for my truck all the time.
Nah, the best protection is living in a tip. If you can't find anything -neither can they and they'll probaly be too disgusted when they peek through the windows to even bother trying.
Now, if you are carrying the gun around the house, or keep it in a convenient place, it's much more likely to be gotten a hold of by the kids, with the result possibly being injury or death. That's a risk I'm not willing to take, in my house with my family. The likelihood of a home invasion is much less than the likelihood of misuse or accident.
That's precisely the point,
I'm not telling
you what to do in
your house. You don't seem to feel the same. :eyebrow:
But yes, guns can be such a bother. Now I have to drive all the way to Boothwyn, must be 3 or 4 miles, to pick up
another gun I've won. The 7th I've won IIRC.
That's precisely the point, I'm not telling you what to do in your house. You don't seem to feel the same. :eyebrow:
....
How many times have I said V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y?
How many times have I said no? :p
I find that a good dog is best for home invaders. Guns are not always close to hand but a dog is foolproof, even more scary than a handgun anyway and will announce itself before you even open the door. Which gives the bad guys a chance to change their little minds.
Works for my truck all the time.
I agree with you on that one Brian. That's why we have one big dog and one small. The small one always barks first, and if she barks like there's actually someone there, the big dog then gets in on the act.
If I was breaking into homes, tazer the dog move-on, if working alone. If working with a partner lock the dog into another room.
Most dogs, unless trained will leave you alone once you are in the house and you give them a treat.
Watch the show about the burglars that now show people how easy it is to break into their homes. The dogs just follow him around until he gets annoyed then he just locks them into a room.
How many times have I said no? :p
Then recant this:
That's precisely the point, I'm not telling you what to do in your house. You don't seem to feel the same. :eyebrow:
....
Since it's precisely NOT the point, as
I'm not telling
you what to do in
your house.
I'm appealing to reason. You don't
have to see reason. ;)
You appeal is not reasonable. It's also not logical nor would it be effective.
Use your head...you want me to voluntarily give up just my hand guns. Ok, how do I do that?
If I sell them, then someone else will have them, so how does that help? The guy that buys them might live next door to you.
Maybe I should put them in the Goodwill or Salvation Army collection boxes. That would get them into the right hands, huh?
How about beating them into plowshares? Nope, don't farm anymore.
Are you suggesting I destroy $11,000 worth of hand guns, that aren't hurting anybody, that are safely locked away, that don't make a stinkin' bit of difference in your life or anyone else's but my own, and if destroyed still wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to anyone but me?
Is that what you want, bunkie? Would that put your mind at ease? Would that let you sleep better?
Get a fuckin' life, Hillary. :right:
Most burglaries are spur of the moment things rkz. Very few are planned to any great extent, and I don't buy the suggestion that dogs don't put burglars off. If there's two houses side by side and one has a dog and the other doesn't, which would you pick if you had no specific reason to choose one or the other besides ease of access?
Aside from that, dogs protect the house and yard when there's no one at home. All the guns in the world wont do anything for you if you're not at home to use them.
Surrre, why listen to the professionals, how silly!?
You pick the house you case, the hosue you feel has the best stuff in it, the dog does not enter into it.
Most criminals are lazy rkz. That's why they're criminals. They don't like working hard.
Simply make it as difficult as possible for them to get in and they'll just as likely pass you by and move on to an easier target.
Why would you bother with a house which has a dog or two in the yard. High fences. Security systems and bars or security screens on all the windows and doors along with deadlocks on all of the same when there's a house in the same neighbourhood which has none of the above?
because they have better stuff !!!
Most criminals are lazy rkz. That's why they're criminals. They don't like working hard.
Simply make it as difficult as possible for them to get in and they'll just as likely pass you by and move on to an easier target.
Why would you bother with a house which has a dog or two in the yard. High fences. Security systems and bars or security screens on all the windows and doors along with deadlocks on all of the same when there's a house in the same neighbourhood which has none of the above?
To steal the dogfood, of course. :D
Zippy, the point is, there's always going to be easier places for average low tech criminals (the majority are smash and grab) to get into than one where the owner has gone to some effort to protect their home and contents.
I'm not suggesting they don't ''case'' potential sites. What I'm suggesting is they do and then decide it looks like too much work and move onto another place that'll be a shit load easier.
I know ( I used to put alarms in for a liveing ) , useualy they just kick in a door and grab what they can ,
But all that security is like a quest for some !!
They just GOTS to see what these folks are hideing in there !!
Yeah, I've heard that argument before too. Personally I don't have an alarm system because I think they're pretty pointless generally. They go off unnecessarily half the time, and then don't work when they're supposed to.
That being said though, evidence still suggests that most would be burglars will choose the easier place over the hard one.
That high fence and/or shrub is a great blind for them to work behind so your neighbors don't see and hear what they are doing also.
Trust me, my neighbours see and hear everything. lol
I'm appealing to reason. You don't have to see reason. ;)
Maybe you're being funny, maybe you aren't, but as a reasonable man I assure you you are appealing not to reason but to unreason -- and your own at that.
I am losing patience with you.
You're asking the rest of us to please be victims -- to satisfy your incomplete notion of civilized behavior. That's bullshit, that's immoral, and you need to be struck across the face. You're a pro-crime guy, Spexx, not a civilized man as a martial artist or a Heinlein fan would understand the term. You prove this with every post you make in pursuit of your monomaniac immorality here. We, the civilized, reject your anticivilization viewpoint and all its arguments. Our moral position -- that resisting evil actively is a mitzvah, regardless of how much violence evil may bring into the contest -- is so immeasurably superior to yours that we can keep you in a condition of defeat without effort, and for all time. You may die in your error, Spexx, but you cannot take us in with you.
But all that security is like a quest for some !!
They just GOTS to see what these folks are hiding in there !!
And then it doesn't hurt to try psychological measures -- like a sign reading:
"Never MIND the Dog! Owner Is Gay and has A History Of Violence."
Sure, he has
A History Of Violence -- on DVD.